Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bristol Corporation (No. 1) Bill (Certified Bill),

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, and agreed to.

Wakefield Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Slough) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Aylesbury, Chesham, and Guildford) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Brentford and Chiswick and Ramsgate) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Chippenham and Grimsby) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hexham) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOLKESTONE WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Folkestone Water," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts, 1905 and 1924," presented by Mr. Short; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]

SALFORD PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Public Health Act, 1875, relating to Salford," presented
by Mr. Short; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

MALVERN HILLS BILL [Lords]. (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): I understood that the Motion for the postponement of the Second Reading of the Bill had been withdrawn.

Mr. BENSON: I gave notice of withdrawal, and I was surprised to find the Amendment on the Paper. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. SPEAKER: The Ayes have it.

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. I said "Object."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member was rather late.

Mr. COCKS: I said it before the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member says he objected, I must accept it.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES AND HORSES.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented for a Return showing the number of accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by vehicles and horses in streets, roads, or public places, and the number of persons killed or injured by such accidents in Great Britain during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1929 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 83, of Session 1929).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Should I be in order in asking the hon. Gentleman whether in this Return he could differentiate rather
more closely between the vehicles that caused these various accidents and whether it would be possible to indicate the percentage of accidents caused by each type of vehicle to which licences have been issued. By these means I think we shall be able to get a better idea of the comparative danger and the comparative number of accidents caused by these various vehicles in respect to their various numbers.

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend will consider whether the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member can be carried out.

Question put, and agreed to.

CANAL BOATS BILL.

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to present a petition on behalf of wives and children of canal boatmen which contains 1,006 signatures, praying that the Canal Boats Bill may not be passed into law.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMIGRANTS' WIVES AND FAMILIES (MAINTENANCE).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that inquiries are being made by the British passport office authorities from British male subjects who desire to proceed to the British Dominions and Colonies as to whether their wives are acquainted with their intended visit, and that they are also further requested to obtain and present with the application for passports a letter from the wife that she is agreeable to the husband proceeding abroad; and will he give particulars of the necessity of making these inquiries?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): Yes, Sir. In the case of emigrants, inquiries are made with a view to ascertaining that proper provision has been made for the maintenance of wives and families.

Mr. DAY: Does the same regulation apply to very well-known artists who are going to our Colonies, earning very large salaries?

Mr. DALTON: I think in such cases the authorities would exercise their discretion. Where it is clear that the wives and families would be provided for, I do not suppose that inquiries would be made.

Colonel ASHLEY: I suppose this only applies to emigrants and not to ordinary visitors?

Mr. DALTON: That is the answer I gave. It only applies to emigrants.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (COAL DUTIES).

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has succeeded in persuading the Brazilian Government to reconsider their import and bunker duties upon coal at Rio de Janeiro amounting to 10s. 10d. per ton?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador, who arrived in Rio de Janeiro on 25th April to take up his duties in Brazil, is studying the question in all its aspects. The question of the desirability of making renewed representations to the Brazilian Government will be borne in mind.

Mr. SAMUEL: Could the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing the matter before bankers who issue loans in this country on behalf of the Brazilian Government when they are asking British subjects to provide money for them?

Mr. DALTON: I regret that the Foreign Office has very slight influence in banking circles.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is it a flat rate or do we get in, under the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, on better terms?

Mr. DALTON: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (TREATY NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. WELLS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any
representations have been received from the judicial adviser as to the effect of the proposal to transfer to the mixed courts in Egypt the right of veto over legislation which discriminates against Europeans?

Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and gallant Member for Howdenshire on 17th April, the High Commissioner has had the advantage of Mr. Booth's advice on all points arising from the proposals which are now being discussed.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it the case that there will be a right of veto or, if the Treaty proposals were passed, would it be possible for legislation discriminating against certain Europeans to be passed?

Mr. DALTON: It is clearly undesirable that I should answer questions at this moment on details connected with Anglo-Egyptian negotiations. There is a later question on the Paper to which I shall return a general reply.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the proposals for the treaty with Egypt, a term is proposed to be included defining the attitude of Great Britain in the event of intervention in the internal affairs of Egypt by a foreign Power?

Mr. DALTON: Any treaty which is concluded will be submitted to the House before it is ratified, and the House will then have a fresh opportunity of discussing its terms. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend cannot think it would be in the public interest to give specific answers to questions of this nature.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: In any event, will the Government regard intervention by a foreign Power as an unfriendly act, and is that consistent with a reply given by the Foreign Secretary the other day when he said that Italy could be expected to look after her own interests in Egypt?

Mr. DALTON: I have nothing to add to the carefully considered answer I have just given.

Earl WINTERTON: In the answer in which the Foreign Secretary said Italy could be trusted to look after her own interests, did he imply that Italy had a right of intervention in the case of certain matters arising?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give an answer to a detailed question—I do not want to press that—surely we are entitled to know whether these points are being considered or not?

Mr. DALTON: All relevant points are being considered in connection with the treaty.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has the Italian Government been consulted in any way on these aspects of the treaty?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the latest figures as to the population of foreigners in Egypt; and to what extent have the Governments of foreign nations so represented been consulted in connection with the proposals put forward in the offer to Egypt set out in the White Paper of last year?

Mr. DALTON: As the answer to the first part of this question contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) on 17th April, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not wish in any way to press the hon. Gentleman to give those figures now, but is it not a fact that there are a certain number of European nationalities who have more nationals in Egypt than there are British, and in that case is it not very desirable that these other countries so represented should be consulted?

Following are the figures:

According to the Census of 1917, which is the latest information available, the figures for the foreign population in Egypt are as follow:


Greek
…
…
…
56,731


Italian
…
…
…
40,198


British
…
…
…
24,354


French
…
…
…
21,270


Russian
…
…
…
4,225




Austrian
…
…
…
2,789


Spanish
…
…
…
1,693


Persian
…
…
…
1,496


Rumanian
…
…
…
895


Dutch
…
…
…
706


Swiss
…
…
…
622


Belgian
…
…
…
518


American
…
…
…
514


Bulgarian
…
…
…
246


Danish
…
…
…
157


German
…
…
…
157


Portuguese
…
…
…
147


Swedish
…
…
…
88


Abyssinian
…
…
…
60


Norwegian
…
…
…
25

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any conditions are being put forward limiting the numbers and armament of the Egyptian Army under the régime to be created by the draft Egyptian Treaty?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir; no such conditions appear in the proposals for an Anglo-Egyptian settlement, which my right hon. Friend submitted to this House last August.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Does it occur to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that these conditions are not being raised is reasonable in view of the declared policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. DALTON: I cannot at this moment add anything to the statement I have already made on the subject of Anglo-Egyptian relations.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Are we to understand that the conditions set up last autumn are going to be meticulously stuck to in every detail?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement as to the position of the negotiations with the Egyptian representatives?

Mr. DALTON: The negotiations, which were resumed on Monday evening, are continuing. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make a statement to-morrow.

Colonel GRETTON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Agreement discussed with the Egyptian delegation provides that the decisions of the Mixed Tribunals shall be upheld and
cannot be set on one side by the Egyptian Government or by decisions of the Egyptian Native Courts?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. The present negotiations are not concerned with the decisions of the Mixed Tribunals, which are established in virtue of agreements between the Egyptian Government and the Capitulatory Powers.

Colonel GRETTON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a commercial treaty is provided for in the agreement discussed with the Egyptian delegation; and if any special terms are contemplated for British contracts and British imports into Egypt as some consideration for the proposals to which the British Government is prepared to agree?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. The question of a Commercial Treaty has not yet been raised.

Colonel GRETTON: Before an agreement is come to, will the question of a commercial treaty be raised?

Mr. DALTON: As I have previously said, I do not think it is desirable at this moment, in answer to supplementary questions, to give details of various matters which may be under discussion by the Anglo-Egyptian Conference.

Mr. SKELTON: Are we to understand that the hon. Member regards the question of a general commercial treaty as a matter of detail?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH MINISTERS OF RELIGION.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the number of British ministers of religion resident in Soviet Russia; whether British ministers of religion are free under the constitution of Soviet Russia to practice their vocation; and whether there are any restrictions upon their activities?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has the hon. Gentleman considered my question properly?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Has the Foreign Office had an opportunity of considering the Resolution, to which I addressed their attention a week ago, of the annual meeting of Nonconformist ministers in London in regard to religious persecution in Russia?

Mr. DALTON: That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question down, it will be answered.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Is "No, Sir," the answer to the second part of the question?

Mr. DALTON: May I express regret that I answered by mistake question No. 6, in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks). The answer is: As regards the first part of the question, there are no British ministers of religion resident in the Soviet Union. Strictly speaking, therefore, the second and third parts do not arise; but I can state for the hon. Member's information that, under a special interpretative decision of the Soviet Constitution by the Central Executive Committee, the propagation of religious teaching in the Soviet Union has for some years past been restricted to Soviet citizens.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I ask whether, in that event, he will not consider the advisability of approaching the Soviet Ambassador with a view to getting special privileges for British ministers in Russia who really visit the country in order to ascertain the conditions; do I understand that it is quite impossible for a British minister to pursue his vocation in Russia; and will he obtain for the British the same privileges in Russia which Soviet trade agents enjoy in this country?

Mr. DALTON: I do not think that I can usefully add anything to the answer that has been given, the first part of which states that there are no British ministers of religion resident in the Soviet Union.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Commander SOUTHBY: Is there no chaplain at the Embassy?

RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (RECALL).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether he has yet discussed with the Soviet Ambassador the situation of Russian subjects resident here who have been ordered home by the Soviet Government or whose permits have expired?

Mr. DALTON: I have already answered this question.

Commander BELLAIRS: Can we not again have the answer to Question No. 6? Supplementary questions are all barred because the hon. Gentleman has already answered the question.

Mr. DALTON: The answer is, "No, Sir."

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Soviet Ambassador and point out to him, having regard to the answer of the Home Secretary the other day, that it would be quite impossible for this Government to allow foreign subjects to return to their country under sentence of death for political reasons?

TRADE AGREEMENT.

Mr. ALBERY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the declarations excluding the Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State from the operation of Articles 4 and 6 of the temporary commercial agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whether he can state what the position is as regards any of the other Dominions?

Mr. DALTON: The position of the other Dominions is as stated in Article 4 of the agreement, which reads:
The provisions of the present agreement may, by mutual agreement, be extended with any modification agreed upon to any of His Majesty's self-governing Dominions (including any mandated territories administered by the Governments of such Dominions) or to India, by means of an exchange of notes between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of any such Dominion or India.

Mr. ALBERY: Are any negotiations at present proceeding with the other Dominions for trade delegations to be located in those Dominions, and do the Russian Government demand diplomatic immunity for such trade delegations?

Mr. DALTON: As far as I am aware, the answer to the first part of the question
is in the negative, but, of course, these will be negotiations between Dominion Governments, and possibly conducted through our own Government to some extent, but I am not able to make any statement as to the view Dominion Governments may put forward in the matter.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the privilege of diplomatic immunity granted to the offices of the Soviet trade delegation is a new privilege not granted under the trade agreement of 1921?

Mr. DALTON: The Trade Agreement of 1921 did not specifically refer to the premises occupied by the official agents appointed thereunder, but provided in Article 5 that such agents should enjoy immunity from arrest and search. It is understood that the late Government took the view that the effect of this Article was to confer immunity front search upon the official premises of the official agent, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason to dissent from this view of the effect of the Agreement.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the hon. Member aware that the late Government took the opposite view; that it only conferred in the words of the Agreement itself, "personal immunity."

Mr. DALTON: That is not in accordance with the advice we have received.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask whether the Government, when they conferred this very exceptional privilege on the Soviet Government, got in return a pledge that the Third International should henceforth cease their hostile propaganda against this country?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask whether any special privileges are being given to the Russian Government beyond what have been given to every other Government with which this country has diplomatic relations?

Mr. DALTON: The question put by the right hon. Member opposite has no relation to the question on the Paper, and that is why I did not rise to answer it. The answer to the question put by my hon. Friend behind me is that the Russian Government's monopoly of
foreign trade leads to a difference of treatment as between that State and other States where foreign trade is not a State monopoly. It has already been explained by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in answer to questions in the House that the line pursued by His Majesty's Government in this matter in relation to the Soviet Union is the same as that pursued by other Governments who have entered into trade agreements and commercial treaties with Russia.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I put another question to the hon. Member? May I ask whether, before this exceptional privilege takes effect, he will get a pledge from the Soviet Government that hostile action on the part of the Third International will cease against this country?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

RELIGIOUS SITUATION.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any recent report from His Majesty's representative in Moscow as to religious persecution in Soviet Russia?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has received from His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow several reports dealing with various aspects of the religious situation in the Soviet Union subsequent to the general report of February last.

Sir K. WOOD: Do any of these reports support the widely prevalent opinion that persecution has been increased during the last two months?

Mr. DALTON: I think that my right hon. Friend has made himself very clear on more than one occasion that we cannot, in answer to questions in this House, disclose particulars of reports received from our representatives abroad, and that to do so would make it quite impossible to continue diplomatic relationships.

Sir K. WOOD: Am I to understand that conditions are such in our relations with Soviet Russia that it is impossible for any information to be given to this House on this question?

Mr. DALTON: No.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Are we to understand that the facts are so damning that the present Government will not have them circulated?

SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA.

Sir A. POWNALL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a manifesto by the executive committee of the Communist International, published in a London daily paper on the 1st May; and whether, in view of the revolutionary appeal contained therein, and in view of the undertaking by the Soviet Government not to engage either directly or indirectly in subversive propaganda in this country, he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has seen the manifesto in question, and has also observed that there was a total lack of response to it. He proposes, therefore, to treat it with the same contempt as that with which he has hitherto regarded similar futile manifestoes emanating from the same source. The House may rest assured that the reply given on 10th March, outlining the attitude of His Majesty's Government in regard to such matters, still holds good.

Sir A. POWNALL: Is the hon. Member aware that this paper describes itself as the organ of the British section of the Communist International, and that it Contains daily incitements to revolution?

Earl WINTERTON: Can the hon. Member say whether the reference he has made to the incitements which appeared in the paper on the day in question also applies to the incitements of a most gross character to persons in India to revolt against the British Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter beyond the question on the Paper.

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. On the day in question appeared the incitement to which I have referred, and I submit that the question on the Order Paper, asking whether attention has been called to a manifesto issued by the Executive Committee of the Communist International, and published in a London daily paper on 1st May, entitles me to ask that question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the supplementary question goes beyond the question on the Order Paper.

Earl WINTERTON: May I point out that the reference in the question is as follows:
by the Executive Committee of the Communist International published in a London daily paper on the 1st May.
I hold the paper in my hand, and these are the words, "Long live the Indian revolution!" I submit that I am entitled to ask my question, as this is a matter of the greatest importance.

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: Can the hon. Member tell us the daily circulation of this Communist paper?

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this as a matter of Privilege at the end of Questions.

BRITISH SUBJECTS (PROPERTY).

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ALBERY:
61. "To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the declaration by the ambassador of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, added to the temporary commercial agreement, concerning all vessels of the former Russian fleet, both military and merchant, affects the present property of any British subjects; and, if so, in what manner?

Mr. ALBERY: I put down Question No. 61 to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it was transferred at short notice to the President of the Board of Trade, who is not present to answer it. May I ask whether it would not be more convenient, when questions have to be transferred from one Minister to another, if the Member concerned were given adequate notice, so that he can put it down to that Minister on the most appropriate day?

Mr. SPEAKER: In arranging to whom questions should be addressed, it would be to the advantage of the House if the hon. Members who ask them have sufficient notice, so that the questions can be put down to the right Minister.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. SMITH): The hon. Member said that the Minister was not here to answer the question. I have been sitting here, and I did not hear the question called, or I should have answered it.

Mr. ALBERY: May I ask the question now?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The declaration to which the hon. Member refers is a unilateral declaration by the Soviet Government which does not, so far as I am aware, modify in any way any previously existing property rights of British subjects.

PERMANENT COURT OF INTER NATIONAL JUSTICE.

Mr. MANDER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any nomination for the vacancy on the Permanent Court of International Justice has yet been made by this country; if so, what name has been put forward; and who are the members of the body making the nomination?

Mr. DALTON: The only vacancy which at present exists is that caused by the resignation of Mr. C. E. Hughes on his appointment as Chief Justice of the United States. The term of office of all the members of the Court, however, expires at the end of this year, and the Council and Assembly will accordingly be called upon to elect the new Court in September next. Under the Statute each "national group" is entitled to nominate four candidates, but my right hon. Friend is not aware whether Sir Cecil Hurst, who is the only member of the "national group" of this country, has as yet exercised his power of nomination.

Mr. MANDER: Is it proposed to make any alteration in the British national body, as Sir Cecil Hurst is the one and only member, and is it consistent with his position as Judge of the World Court to remain a member of that body?

Mr. DALTON: At present I am not aware that there is any change proposed.

CHINA (SITUATION).

Sir K. WOOD: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information to give the House concerning the position in China; whether he can make any statement concerning the safety of the Reverend and Mrs. N. W. Porteous, British missionaries recently captured by Chinese bandits; and whether he has any information of the capture of Mr. C. A. Bridgman at Changshow?

Mr. DALTON: With regard to the position in China, my right hon. Friend has little to add to the reply which was given on Monday last to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald). At the request of the Chinese authorities, who appear to anticipate a recrudescence of hostilities in the South, British subjects at Nanning on the West River have been advised to withdraw if they are able to do so. The head of the Provisional Government informed His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow on 28th April that Mr. and Mrs. Porteous were quite safe and that it was hoped to effect their release within the next few days. Mr. Bridgman, who was captured by brigands at Changshow on 9th April, was recently reported to have escaped.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that as far as British subjects are concerned, all steps are being taken to have regard to their safety at the present time?

Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir. Everything possible is being done.

KELLOGG PACT.

Mr. MANDER: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to communicate immediately with the signatories of the Kellogg Pact in the event of a threatened breach of its provisions?

Mr. DALTON: I am not in a position to indicate in advance what action would be taken in the event of a situation which I trust may never arise.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the hon. Member agrees with the view expressed by Mr. Kellogg that the right of consultation is inherent in the Pact itself?

Mr. DALTON: I do not think it is possible to answer questions of that kind without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CANDIDATES (DARTMOUTH).

Sir A. POWNALL: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of candidates who have offered themselves for the June examination for entrance to
Dartmouth; and what is the number of vacancies?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The closing date for applications for the forthcoming Dartmouth examination has not yet arrived, and the numbers required for the subsequent entry are at present under consideration in the light of future Fleet requirements.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many vacancies there are to be filled?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have answered that question in the last part of my answer.

Mr. AYLES: May I ask what percentage of the students in this college go into the Navy and what percentage into the professions?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have no doubt my hon. Friend will put that question on the Paper.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "CERES" (TUBERCULOSIS).

Captain BALFOUR: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of the ship s complement of His Majesty's Ship "Ceres" who served in the Mediterranean during 1928 and 1929 and who, during such service in that ship, or subsequently, have developed tuberculosis?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The numbers of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis occurring in His Majesty's Ship "Ceres" were two during 1928 and three during 1929, whilst she was in commission on the Mediterranean Station. It is not known how many of the personnel, if any, of His Majesty's Ship "Ceres" developed pulmonary tuberculosis subsequently to their leaving that ship, and to ascertain this would involve a large amount of research such as I should not feel justified in ordering in the absence of very special reasons.

Captain BALFOUR: May I ask whether five cases of tuberculosis in one ship is considered by naval medical authorities as far more than the usual number?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The number of such cases varies a great deal in the same type of ship, but I am satisfied that the general health of the Navy in
regard to this type of disease has been maintained during the last two years.

Captain BALFOUR: In this particular ship?

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: May I ask how many of these men were given pensions on account of their disability?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Obviously, I should require notice of that question.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these were contact cases?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I must ask hon. Members to please give me notice of questions like that.

SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.

22. Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 21
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether it is proposed to scrap the cruisers of the "Hawkins" class in view of the fact that they will be surplus to authorised tonnage under the London Naval Treaty by 1936, or whether it will be possible to convert these vessels so that they can be scheduled under Category (b) of Article 16 of that Treaty;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the overdue replacement programme for cruisers carrying 6.1-inch guns or under; and when he expects to be in a position to announce the new building programme in this connection?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 31.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state what additional new war shipbuilding will be undertaken in the present financial year?

Mr. ALEXANDER: All relevant considerations will be taken into account by His Majesty's Government in the examination, which they are undertaking with the least possible delay, of naval construction policy in the light of the London Navy Treaty. I cannot yet say when it will be possible to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that it will be necessary to introduce Supplementary Estimates to meet these demands?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have already stated so in the House.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the ships in question are affected by Article 20 of the Treaty, and will he explain how it is that this country has a special limitation on replacements put upon it?

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is a matter for debate when the question has to be discussed.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: There must be some limit to these supplementary questions.

Mr. MORLEY: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the effect of the Three-Power Naval Agreement upon the construction, in this country, of torpedo-boats and destroyers; and if he will allocate such construction between private and Government dockyards in such a way as to maintain the normal volume of employment in each?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The question of future naval construction is now under consideration by His Majesty's Government. I am not in a position at present to make any statement on the subject but I can assure my hon. Friend that new construction will be allocated with due regard to economy and the requirements of the employment situation.

GUNNERS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of promotions to the rank of gunner made in any given year; and whether there is likely to be further promotion to this rank in the near future?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The total number of gunners and officers promoted there-from in His Majesty's Navy is determined by the requirements of the Fleet and promotions are only made in vacancies. Owing to reductions in Fleet requirements no promotions were made in 1929 but they have now been resumed. Eight promotions were made to date 1st April, and it is anticipated that further promotions will be made in the next few months.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is able to make any further statement about continuing the construction of the battleship base at Singapore?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am unable to add anything to the reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on 30th April, [OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 183.]

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is it correct to describe the base at Singapore as a battleship base? Is it not a naval base for all classes of ships?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The base is, of course, a naval base. It was intended as a naval base, but the hon. and gallant Member knows as well as anyone in the House that one of the great arguments in favour of the base has been the need of providing docking accommodation in that area for battleships.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not intended primarily as a battleship base?

PERSONNEL.

Sir W. DAVISON: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in the parity agreement arrived at with the United States of America the personnel allowed to the British Navy is the same as that allowed to the United States; and, if not; what are the numbers allowed to the British and American Navies, respectively?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The question of the limitation of naval personnel was not considered at the London, Naval Conference and no numbers were, therefore, fixed for the British and United States Navies.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is not this a very important matter? Can the right hon. Gentleman not assure the House that in the arrangement as to parity between the United States and this country, the British Navy will not be under a disadvantage as to numbers and personnel?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The agreement is based upon the requirements of new ships, and I have no doubt that the Board of Admiralty will take proper steps to see that the ships are properly manned.

VOLUNTEER RESERVE (INSTRUCTORS).

Sir B. FALLE: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether pensioner and petty officers who are employed as instructors at the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve headquarters are, in the event of injury, paid compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, or whether they come under the instructions for disability pensions?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The men in question are entitled to compensation under the Naval Disability Pension Regulations in the event of injury attributable to the Service.

ROYAL MARINE (PENSIONER) POLICE.

Sir B. FALLE: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that in the Royal Marine (Pensioner) Police some are serving at 7s. and some at 6s. doing the same duty, and such pay is inadequate to keep men in food and clothing; and if he will inquire into the matter?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The present rates of pay for constables of the Royal Marine Police are 47s. 10d. a week for men entered up to 4th October, 1925, and 40s. 10d. a week for men who entered or re-entered after that date. An additional 3s. 6d. a week is paid after 2½ years' service if a proficiency standard is passed. Higher rates are available on promotion. In addition to the above rates, a uniform is issued on enlistment free of charge and an upkeep allowance is paid. Free quarters are also provided or an allowance in lieu of 10s. 6d. a week. Gratuities are paid on retirement at the discretion of the Admiralty at the rate of £1 for each month of service for constables, with higher rates for superior grades. These rates of pay and allowances are subject to revision periodically.

ITALIAN NAVAL PROGRAMME.

Sir K. WOOD: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement to the House concerning the new Italian naval programme?

Sir W. DAVISON: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the new naval programme just issued by the Italian Government for the building of 29 new warships; whether intimation of this was given at the recent Naval Conference; and what will be its effect on the British naval programme?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The Admiralty are aware of the proposed Italian naval programme.
It is usual for that country's naval requirements to be considered annually in the spring when the naval estimates are under review, so that there is nothing unusual in the announcement of a programme at this time. Intimation of this programme was not specifically given at the London Naval Conference. Our own naval programme is under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to say what that will be.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the premise that our programme has nothing to do with the Italian programme?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Necessary provision for the naval defence of this country must always be relative as well as absolute. My hon. and gallant Friend is aware that in the provisions of the Treaty now in draft for ratification by the Powers concerned there is laid down what we may call a safety clause.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman lay down absolute conditions in regard to cruisers?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA.

MUI-TSAI SYSTEMS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received a report on the alleged existence of the mui-tsai systems in Malaya?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Shiels): My Noble Friend has received and considered the Report from the Governor and High Commissioner. As was explained to the hon. Member in reply to his question on 6th November last, the employment of girls as mui-tsai is strictly regulated by law in Malaya, and the Report satisfied my Noble Friend and myself that there is now no feature of this Chinese social custom as permitted in Malaya to which exception can be taken.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

Major GRAHAM POLE: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now received a report from the High Commissioner as to whether any decision has been arrived at by the authorities in Malaya in regard to the
proposal that, in view of the shortage of properly trained teachers for the schools on the estates, trained elementary school teachers should be recruited from South India until facilities are provided for training a sufficient number of vernacular teachers locally?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, but my Noble Friend will ask the High Commissioner what is the present position in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

SHERIF HUSSEIN AND SIR H. McMAHON.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the McMahon letters with the Sherif Hussein have been published; how many have not been published; and whether, in view of the importance of clearing up the divergent views held about this correspondence, he will have the whole of this correspondence published?

Dr. SHIELS: I understand that none of the letters between General McMahon and the Sherif Hussein has been officially published. The second part of the question does not therefore arise. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the great misunderstanding that exists at the present time, does the hon. Member not think that it is time this matter should be cleared up by publishing these letters?

Dr. SHIELS: I think I have on many occasions indicated the reasons which make it undesirable and unnecessary, in our opinion, for this publication to take place.

Mr. McSHANE: What does the hon. Member mean by saying that they have not been officially published? If they have been unofficially published, is it possible to presume that Members of this House should get to know the contents of the letters?

Dr. SHIELS: I am not aware that the letters have been unofficially published, completely. There have been various extracts given from time to time, but I am not aware that the letters as a whole have been published, either officially or unofficially.

MISSION.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the instructions which will be given to Sir John Hope Simpson in connection with his mission to Palestine?

Dr. SHIELS: Sir John Hope Simpson has been instructed to proceed to Palestine on a temporary mission in order to confer with the High Commissioner on questions relating to land settlement, immigration and development, and to report on these subjects to the Secretary of State.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: How long is this expected to take? How long will it be before it comes back?

Dr. SHIELS: I expect that it will be two or, perhaps, three months.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the report be published?

Dr. SHIELS: That matter has not been decided, but I anticipate that it will be.

KENYA (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, REPRESENTATION).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state if representation is accorded to the Church of Scotland in Kenya officially on public occasions or if such representation is confined to the Church of England?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. My Noble Friend sent a despatch to the Governor of Kenya early in March asking for a report. The Governor's reply has not yet been received, but I will communicate with the hon. Member when the report arrives.

BERMUDA (WOMEN SUFFRAGE).

Viscountess ASTOR: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if there is any proposal to print the memorandum of the women of Bermuda in regard to suffrage as a White Paper, with the comments of the Governor and persons concerned; and is the Secretary of State aware that the word male was inserted only last year in the Consolidating Acts in order to exclude women?

Dr. SHIELS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, my Noble Friend is of course aware of the provisions of the Parish Vestries Act, 1929, of Bermuda, if that is the Statute to which the Noble Lady refers.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the hon. Member able to quote any similar example in any territory governed under the British flag where there is so rigid a tightening up of the law in regard to women?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lady had better put that question upon the Order Paper if she wants all that information.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA.

DISTURBANCES.

Mr. HORRABIN: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report on the recent disturbances in Nigeria will be published; and, if so, whether it will include the evidence tendered to the commission of inquiry?

Dr. SHIELS: The Commission which was appointed by the Governor has just concluded taking evidence, and its Report is not likely to be ready for some time. I assume that it will be published by the Colonial Government, but the question whether the evidence should be published is one for subsequent decision. The hon. Member's inquiry will be brought to the notice of the Governor.

COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT ORDER.

Mr. HORRABIN: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in addition to the fine of £450 imposed upon the villagers of Umu Akpara, Nigeria, they were also required to pay in kind foodstuffs and goats which necessitated several motor lorries for their transport from the village; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has not received any information on the subject, but he will make inquiry of the Governor.

Mr. HORRABIN: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether or not the
Collective Punishment Ordinance under which these fines have been imposed, does permit of the wholesale commandeering of cattle in this way?

Dr. SHIELS: Collective punishment orders do permit of fines being taken in cattle.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. DAY: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Empire Marketing Board are at present in contemplation or preparation of the production of any further cinematograph films; if so, will he give particulars of the subjects; and are these films produced with the sole object of bringing before the public of Great Britain products of the Colonies or the Dominions and/or vice versa?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): I am afraid that I am unable at present to add anything to the detailed answers regarding the Empire Marketing Board's cinematograph work which I gave my hon. Friend on the 5th, the 12th and the 26th March, and the 16th April last.

BRITISH PRODUCTS.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the extension of the work of the Empire Marketing Board by popularising British products in the Dominions and Colonies; and, if not, when a decision is likely to be reached?

Mr. LUNN: As regards the Empire Marketing Board, I would refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Gratton-Doyle) on 2nd April. I would also refer the hon. and gallant Member to the announcement published in the Press on 10th April reporting that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade has decided to constitute an Overseas Trade Development Council, with the object of considering how the sale of United kingdom goods outside this country can best be promoted.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIRSHIP CRUISE (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Sir A. POWNALL: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is intended to give Members of Parliament the opportunity of going for a cruise in R 100 or R 101?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend hopes that it will be possible to arrange for such a flight in July next.

Sir A. POWNALL: Will the hon. Gentleman see that preference is given to those who were disappointed owing to the weather conditions on a former occasion?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will he see that this opportunity includes experience of these vessels in bad weather?

MALTA (TRAVELLING CONCESSION).

Captain BALFOUR: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been drawn to the recent Admiralty Fleet Order outlining arrangements arrived at between the Admiralty and the Peninsula and Oriental Steamship Company, whereby return tickets to Malta are issued at a special reduced price of £15 to naval ratings below warrant rank; whether the Air Ministry have made similar arrangements for corresponding Air Force ranks serving in the Fleet air-arm aircraft carriers; and, if not, will he endeavour to obtain this concession?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am aware of the arrangement to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and the question of its extension in the manner proposed by him is already under consideration.

GRAF ZEPPELIN'S VISIT.

Mr. DAY: 46.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any protests or complaints have been received by his Department of the incident in which the Graf Zeppelin passed over the Wembley Stadium during the progress of the Football Cup Final on Saturday, 26th April; can he say whether, in giving permission and facilities for the visit of this airship across London, any specified time of such visit was mentioned; and
how many men of the Royal Air Force were specially detailed for duty at Cardington on the occasion of this visit?

Mr. MONTAGUE: As regards the first part of the question, no protests or complaints have been received by the Air Ministry. As regards the second part, the Airship Construction Company, Friedrichshafen, stated in a telegram of 25th April to the Air Ministry that the Graf Zeppelin would be passing over London between 3 and 4 p.m., but no mention was made of Wembley. As regards the last part, in addition to civilian employés of the Royal Airship Works, Cardington, 100 airmen from Henlow were detailed to assist in landing the airship.

HENDON DISPLAY.

Miss LEE: 47.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is intended to hold the aerial pageant at Hendon this year as on previous occasions; whether any other pageants besides that at Hendon have been projected; It he will state the purpose of aerial pageants and their approximate cost to the nation; and whether he will consider confining the display to civil aviation and excluding all war aircraft from participation in them?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer being necessarily of some length, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, no other display of a similar nature to that at Hendon is organised at home by the Royal Air Force, but some Royal Air Force aircraft will be taking part in the civil flying meetings referred to in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day) on 19th March. As regards the third part, the purposes for which the display at Hendon is held are to provide an annual inspection and review, corresponding in some degree to the reviews of the Navy and Army at Spithead and Aldershot, as a means of ascertaining the degree of efficiency that is being maintained in the Air Force and as a test of individual and collective skill, to enable the public to see something of the work of the Royal Air Force, and incidentally to raise funds
for Air Force charities. No extra cost over and above that of ordinary training, of which the display forms part, is thrown upon public funds; the cost of all special arrangements and facilities for spectators is met out of the receipts. As regards the last part, my Noble Friend sees no reason for thus altering the character of an annual event in which it is evident, from the attendance, that the general public take a very great interest.

RECRUITING POSTERS.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 48.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that there has been great waste in the orders for posters from the Air Ministry during the past 10 years, there being as many as 93 per cent. of the order returned to the Stationery Office; and whether he will look into the matter and take steps to see that this waste does not occur again in the future?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Considerable numbers of recruiting posters were ordered for a special recruiting campaign in the years 1920–21, but since that date comparatively few have been ordered. Of those ordered 10 years ago a large proportion have, as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, become out of date and consequently been thrown up as waste. This has been due to changes in the volume and method of recruiting which could not have been foreseen at the date of the order. I am afraid that changes of policy, sound and desirable in themselves, and often decided on with the express object of achieving economy, must on occasions lead to some incidental waste, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the possibility of scrapping of material being entailed is always taken into account before new policy is adopted.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman looking carefully into this case and taking steps to see that this waste will not happen again?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. MACLEAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to set up the
promised committee of inquiry into the administration of public affairs in Scotland; whether he can state the composition of that committee; and whether part of the terms of reference will be the transfer of the functions of government of Scottish affairs to a Scottish Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. If my hon. Friend will refer to my remarks during the Debate on the Address on 10th July last he will find that what I had in mind was that a committee of inquiry into Scottish administration should not be set up until after about 12 months' experience had been gained of the working of the Local Government (Scotland) Act. As regards the third part., I am unable to add anything to what I said during the Debate referred to on the subject of the terms of reference to any such committee.

CALTON SITE.

Mr. MACLEAN: 53.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, seeing that a Scottish Departmental Committee was appointed in 1913 by the then First Commissioner of Works to inquire into the plans of the buildings on the Calton (Edinburgh) site, and that committee in its report recommended that the plans for building on the Calton site should be open to public competition, he will reconsider his decision and adopt that recommendation?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I have now received the observations of the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland on the proposed building scheme for the Calton (Edinburgh) site, and I am at present reconsidering the whole project in the light of their report.

Mr. MACLEAN: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give a definite reply as to the decision arrived at, and when may I put down another question?

Mr. LANSBURY: Perhaps the hon. Member would allow me to give him notice of that when I have had a little more time to consider the matter.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the basis
on which the 50s. unit grant has been fixed for re-housing families under the new slum clearance scheme; and whether he can give the average number of persons per family re-housed under recent slum clearance schemes in Scotland?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): In arriving at the unit grant of 50s. per person, regard was had to the average costs of houses, to the rents likely to be received from the class of tenant for whom the houses were to be provided, and to the amount of the annual expenses likely to be incurred by local authorities on the maintenance, etc., of the houses. It is estimated that the amount of grant will generally provide a material increase on the present grant of 50 per cent. of the annual loss on re-housing schemes. As regards the second part of the question, I am unable to give the particulars asked for in respect of the persons re-housed; but the average number of persons per family displaced from houses to be closed, under all schemes submitted up to the present date, is estimated at 4.2.

Mr. MILLAR: Can the hon. Member give us the figures for particular slum clearance schemes in particular towns, and if so, will he not find that the averages are distinctly below 4.2?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The average, as I have already said, of all the schemes submitted up to the present is 4.2.

Mr. MILLAR: I am asking if the hon. Member will give us the figures for particular areas and particular towns.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If I picked out particular areas or particular towns, I could give some under 4.2, seeing that the average is 4.2.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the average in Edinburgh is 3.6?

Mr. JOHNSTON: No, not without notice.

RAMSGATE HARBOUR (BOAT LICENCES).

Captain BALFOUR: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that for many years past the local authority at Ramsgate have in the interest of the
public safety issued licences in respect to boats carrying less than 12 passengers and also to boatmen under Section 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act, 1907; and for what reason the Ministry of Transport, through the harbour master at Ramsgate, allow boats, including speed boats, carrying less than 12 passengers, to ply for hire from Ramsgate Harbour without a licence from the local authority and at the same time impose a charge of 2d. for each passenger carried, and also allow unlicensed boatmen to navigate such craft?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am aware of the powers of local authorities to license pleasure boats and boatmen under the Act referred to, but I have no special information with regard to the action taken by the Ramsgate Corporation in this direction. As regards the latter part of the question, under Section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, the harbour must be kept open to all persons for the embarking and landing of passengers subject to payment of the authorised rates and to the other provisions of the Act. In the circumstances I do not appear to have power to prevent boats and boatmen which comply with these conditions from using the harbour, and it would appear to be for the corporation themselves to use such powers as they may possess for enforcing the provisions of Section 94 of the Act of 1907.

Captain BALFOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his employé, the harbour master of Ramsgate, definitely flouts the right of the local authority to license or to grant permits to any boats plying for hire in the harbour?

Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say whether that is so or not. It will partly depend on whether the officer in question has a right to exercise a certain amount of independent jurisdiction, irrespective of the local authority; but if the hon. and gallant Member has any points of detail and communicates them to me. I shall look into them.

PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS (WINDOW CLEANING).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 52.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how often
are the outside windows of the Committee Rooms cleaned; and when were they last cleaned?

Mr. LANSBURY: The outer windows are cleaned externally four times per annum, and internally five or six times per annum. They were last cleaned externally on 22nd February and internally during the week ending 29th March.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the state of these windows to-day would be a disgrace to any private house; and does not that prove that Government control is most inefficient as compared with private control?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

OPIUM SMOKING.

Major POLE: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can give information showing which of the provincial Governments in British India have enacted legislation prohibiting the smoking of opium; and if action is being taken towards the same end in those provinces where opium smoking is still permitted by law?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I could not adequately answer this question within the limits of an oral reply. I am having my hon. and gallant Friend supplied with a copy of a recent report to the League of Nations and would invite his attention to pages 11 and 12.

INDIAN STATES (TRADE UNIONS).

Major POLE: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can now give information as to the extent to which freedom of association obtains in the Indian territories under ruling princes; and whether, since the enactment in British India of the India Trade Union Act, similar legislation has been adopted in any of the Indian States?

Mr. BENN: I am informed by the Government of India that the information is being collected. I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know when it is received.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Have we not treaties with the various
Indian States in regard to this particular legislation; and is it not desirable that we should be very careful at a time like the present not to interfere with any treaty rights of this kind?

Mr. BENN: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman may leave this matter to the discretion of the Government of India.

SITUATION.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the situation in India?

Mr. BENN: I am anxious to give the House the fullest and promptest information on the Indian situation; but it will be realised that unofficial messages naturally anticipate the receipt of official news because the Government officers on the spot, have, as their first duty, to deal with events, and cannot report through the Central or Local Governments to me until after they have taken whatever action may have been necessary. At this moment there is not much of substance that I can add to the news which has been published, but I will read to the House, in supplement, official telegrams from some areas.
Punjab.—My latest report is dated 5th May and relates to the position on Sunday and Monday.
Sunday and to-day quiet throughout the Punjab except for partial hartal in Lahore to-day in consequence of Gandhi's arrest. Police had to disperse demonstrations this morning, and again this afternoon. Matters not serious.
Bengal.—The following is a report dated yesterday, 6th May:
To-day hartal in Calcutta, No serious disturbances. Crowd at Bhowanipore started disturbances. Crowd at Bhowanipore started stoning trams and omnibuses but was dispersed. Large crowd gathered in North Calcutta, but no disturbance. Police holding streets strongly and light lorry patrols running. Hindu shops generally are closed. Muhammedan shops were closed in Hindu quarter, but open in Mohammedan quarter. Trams and many omnibuses and taxis running but Hindu and Sikh omnibuses and taxi-owners generally observing hartal. In Howrah, European Inspector, Sergeant and police picket sent to stop interference with light railway were stoned by large crowd and surrounded. They fought their way out to Grand Trunk Road. Inspector and Sergeant fired 15 rounds each, casualties not reported. Superintendent of Police
with armed police charged crowd repeatedly and dispersed them. Situation now in hand. European Inspector attacked by crowd at Ramkristopur ferry and stoned. He and Sergeant fired five rounds in all. One casualty noticed. Ferry service at Ramkristopur stopped. No pickets at Lillooah workshops, and men going to work. Omnibuses working. No report from mill areas, but believed to be quiet. General impression hopeful. Magistrate and Superintendent of Police at Howrah in car attacked by crowd near Ramkristopur. Windscreen smashed. Superintendent of Police fired seven shots, believes hit ringleader(s). Eastern Frontier Rifles (Military Police) cleared locality. Reinforcements sent. Hooghly and Mill area quiet. Railway Police Station at Ranaghat, District Nadia, reported entered by 500 volunteers believed due to arrest of assailant of man selling the 'Statesman.' Details not reported. Relief sent.
I have had the following further telegram this morning:
All quiet in Howrah. Hooghly, 24 Parganas, and Calcutta, Chittagong, four raiders killed, three captured, six revolvers recovered. Details not received.
I think that refers to the raid some time since.
Delhi.—Messages from the Chief Commissioner, all dated yesterday, deal with events which have been reported in the newspapers. Referring to the number of rioters who have been injured, he states that accurate numbers are not yet known although report is to the effect that some 20 or 30 have reached the police station for transfer to hospital or immediate medical treatment.
As his account of the riot in Chandni Chowk is somewhat fuller than the Press account. I will read it:
Three police lorries were returning to the Kotwali (police station). Two first lorries severely stoned but succeeded in reaching the Kotwali, while the third was cut off and marooned in the midst of the mob. To rescue this lorry and police it contained, senior Superintendent of Police led charge from the Kotwali; immediately on issuing from the Kotwali police were assailed by floods of stones and bricks hurled from the Sikh Gurdwara next door. Only method of protecting themselves and rescuing their comrades in the lorry, who were still being savagely attacked, was for the police to open fire with buckshot, which was accordingly done. By this means the police lorry was rescued at the cost of six police casualties of which two reported severely injured. After dispersal of mob Gurdwara was then raided and various arrests made of people found hiding therein of whom some Sikhs, who protested innocence, have since been released while other suspects, Hindus, have been retaind in custody. Armoured cars promptly despatched in support from Fort on news being received of attack on police
near Kotwali, but it was not found necessary to utilise their services in dispersing the mob.
Bombay.—My latest report, dated yesterday, is as follows:
Generally speaking the situation is still quiet following on the arrest of Gandhi. Yesterday afternoon, that is Monday, a large meeting was held in Bombay but was conducted peacefully. The hartal started yesterday continues to-day. In the mill area 44 mills, more than 50 per cent. of the whole, are at work. Troops continue to be held in readiness at strategic points.
At Surat the situation is quiet and some of the shops are open.
At Ahmedabad some 15 out of about 70 mills are working; police arrangements for the maintenance of order continue but troops have been withdrawn from the town.
Burma.—The following telegram, dated 6th May, has been received from the Government of Burma:
According to reports received, no disturbances in Burma yesterday or to-day.
I should add that I have no official information as to the reported earthquake.
I have now given the House all the information in my possession. It is to be noted that, except in certain parts of the Bombay Presidency, and in a single district in the North-West Frontier Province, where special conditions have obtained, there have been no disturbances reported to me from rural areas. Further, in general, the Moslem community has held aloof from participation in the civil disobedience campaign. The serious labour trouble on the Great Indian Peninsula Railway has, as the House knows, come to an end and the strike of carters in Calcutta which had its origin in causes of long standing and had little or no connection with recent political activities, was, after the first disturbances, brought to an end after consultation with the leaders.
I should like to add a tribute, in which I am sure the House will join, to the officers and men engaged at this time on very difficult duties and an expression of the confidence felt by the Government, and I am sure, shared by the House, in the Viceroy.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am sure that the House will have listened with great interest to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has read. There was only one subject on which he said nothing, and that was the situation at Peshawar. Will he be prepared at this moment to add anything of this subject, or will he be in a position, perhaps tomorrow, if a further question is put down, to give us some information as to the position of affairs in Peshawar? The information which we have had so far has not, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, been very full, and it has been mainly obtained from newspaper sources, and the House would be very glad to hear some authoritative statement from the Government. There is one question which I might perhaps ask, although I have no doubt what the answer will be, and that is this: The House may assume, I take it, that the Government will support in every way the Viceroy and the Government of India through these very anxious times?

Mr. BENN: The latter part of my answer, I think, answers the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. As regards Peshawar, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a long communiqué was issued yesterday, and since then I have had no official telegram on the subject.

Earl WINTERTON: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the communiqué to which he refers there was a reference of a disturbing character to Communist propaganda and Communist literature being distributed in the tribal area around Peshawar? Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he gives the fuller report which he has promised to my right hon. Friend, get the Government of India to explain exactly what is meant by this, and if they are able to say whether the origin of this propaganda is from within India or from without?

Mr. BENN: I have assured the Leader of the Opposition that as soon as we have information it will be put at the disposal of the House. I judge that the Noble Lord does not wish me to make special inquiries at this particular moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

HEREFORDSHIRE.

Mr. OWEN: 63.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many workers employed by the Forestry Commissioners in Herefordshire have been notified to cease work this month, and the reason for this dismissal?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The number is three, and the reason is that the planting season has ended.

WAGES.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. WILLIAM TAYLOR:
62. "To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, from what date does the increased wage operate for adult male forest workers in their employ; and does the 35s. per week apply to casual workers employed?

Mr. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. May I be permitted to say that Questions 61 and 62 passed with such rapidity that the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) and I were overlooked.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will give the hon. Member an opportunity of asking his question.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The 35s. minimum weekly wage operates from the day following the next pay period after the 23rd April last, the latest possible date being the 8th instant. This rate does not apply to casual workers employed for less than a week, but does apply to seasonal workers.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the latter part of his reply in regard to casual workers?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Yes, I will give the matter consideration.

NEWBRIDGE COMMON, PIRBRIGHT.

Mr. EDE: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for War when his Department secured the freehold of Newbridge Common, Pirbright, Surrey; whether he claims that all rights of common in this land have been extinguished; if he is aware that the land has been and is much used for air and exercise by the inhabitants
of the district and others; if it is proposed to dispose of the land for private building; if so, when the sale will take place; and whether, in view of the desirability of retaining access for the public to all land to which they now have access for air and exercise, he will countermand any proposed sale?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. SHAW): The freehold of this property was acquired by the War Department in 1877. All rights of common were extinguished in 1878, and any public user of the land has been unauthorised. It is proposed to put the property up for sale on the 13th of this month. As regards the last part of the question, as the land is not required for military purposes, I regret that I cannot agree to countermand the instructions for its disposal.

Mr. EDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, inasmuch as this land was in the occupation of the Crown, it was impossible for the local town planning authority to plan it as an open space, and will he be prepared to receive representations from the rural district council and the county council concerned with regard to the future use of this land, which is in fact an open space?

Mr. SHAW: I will be prepared to receive representations from any responsible body.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is part of the Chancellor's plan to dispose of the surplus Government lands to private persons so that he can get some land values to tax?

LITIGATION (COST).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 65.
asked the Attorney-General what steps are being taken to give effect to the memorandum sent by the London Chamber of Commerce complaining of the cost of litigation and asking that the present procedure in the Courts of Justice may be simplified?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir James Melville): The memorandum to which the hon. Gentleman refers is under consideration. I am not at present in a position to make any further statement with regard to the matter.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the present position almost amounts to a denial of justice, and is he aware that there are now 3,000 pages of procedure in a book which weighs nearly 6 lbs., although printed on India paper?

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

UNEMPLOYMENT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 66.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the representations being made to different Government Departments as to the delay in giving official sanction or aid to schemes of local authorities specifically put forward for the relief of unemployment; and whether he can take any steps to stimulate these Departments?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

MOTOR ACCIDENTS, WALSALL.

Mr. McSHANE: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of accidents that have taken place during the past two years and the number of people injured, due to motor traffic, on the Walsall-Green Lane-Bloxwich road?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): Thirty-four accidents are recorded by the police. Fourteen persons were injured, including two fatally injured.

Mr. McSHANE: Is my hon. Friend aware that this road is in the most densely populated part of the town, and that there has recently been canalised into it heavy traffic, which makes it a real menace to hundreds of children playing in that street, who have no playground whatever of any kind; and will he look into the matter?

Mr. SHORT: Certainly.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE ACT, 1929.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that many
persons who hold industrial assurance policies are still unaware of the benefits to which they are entitled under the Industrial Assurance Act, 1929, and may lose their money through not applying within the specified time; and whether he has taken any additional steps to make the position known for the benefit of these people, most of whom are in poor circumstances?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): Yes, Sir. As I informed the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) on 11th March last, by the courtesy of the British Broadcasting Corporation a statement as to the rights of policy-holders was broadcast on 21st February last; and at my request the Corporation kindly consented to repeat this last Monday. The statement was at the same time circulated to the Press, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Earl WINTERTON: I with to raise a question of order arising out of Questions. I am aware that no question of Privilege can arise on Rulings which you, Mr. Speaker, give in respect of supplementary questions, in view of the fact that it has always been held that Mr. Speaker is the sole judge of whether a supplementary question is or is not in order. I am, however, anxious to safeguard what I respectfully claim is my right as a Member of the House to put a question as a notice question on the subject of a manifesto which recently appeared in a London daily newspaper. The matter arises in this way. A question which is No. 14 on the Order Paper to-day, was put to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The question was:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a manifesto by the executive committee of the Communist International, published in a Lonodon daily paper on the 1st May; and whether, in view of the revolutionary appeal contained therein and in view of the undertaking by the Soviet Government not to engage either directly or indirectly in subversive propaganda in this country, he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
When the Minister replied, I asked him whether his reply also had reference to the portion of the manifesto in question,
which I hold in my hand, and to which I do not wish to refer now, in which the phrase occurs, "Long live the Indian revolution!" and in which there are what I should describe as incitements to the people of India to rebel. You ruled that this supplementary question could not arise on this particular question. I am only now anxious to safeguard what I respectfully claim is my right to ask a question on the subject, and I wish to ask whether it will be in order if I put down again the question which has already appeared on the Paper, and to add to it, after the words "in the matter" the words "of the incitement to rebellion in India"? It seems to be a matter of some importance in view of recent events.

Mr. McKINLAY: May I draw attention to the fact that repeatedly, at the Table, questions have been refused because they were based purely on newspaper information? No later than yesterday I had a question refused because it was a quotation from a publication.

Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the Noble Lord and the last part of his question, I should like to see the question which he proposes to put, before I could say whether it is in order or not. As regards the first part of his question, it is a difficult duty which the Speaker has to perform to stop a supplementary question if he thinks it goes too far or is not relevant to the matter on the Paper. All I can say is that I do my best to perform that duty.

Earl WINTERTON: May I thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and say that it entirely meets my point.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not an extraordinary and unprecedented act for an hon. Member to submit to you publicly the form of a question which he proposes to put on the Order Paper, and is not that a practice which is to be very strongly deprecated?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it was only an isolated instance. I do not think we need attach so much importance to it as to make it a precedent.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a very brief personal
explanation, in order to answer an accusation that was brought against me last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who accused me of breaking an alleged agreement on the question of business. In every conversation that I held with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury regarding the extra day for the Report stage of the Budget Resolution, I refused to say at what hour the Report stage could be brought to a conclusion, for the very simple and obvious reason that it was not in my power so to do. What I did say was that if the Parliamentary Secretary would put down some business afterwards that was not of too controversial a nature, I would do my best to assist him to get it through. That is exactly what happened last night; the Government obtained all the business that was announced by the Prime Minister, and I do not know what is the gravamen of the accusation which was made against us last night.
I regret that this controversy has arisen between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and myself. For seven years I have been intimately connected with the conduct of the business of this House, and for many years I have been in friendly relations with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. I have always aimed at working for the convenience of the House, and principally at avoiding all-night sittings, which I know are not liked by the majority of Members. These negotiations have involved the making of daily bargains with the other side of the House, and this is the first occasion on which any of them have been called into question across the Floor of the House. I much regret that, on one of the first occasions when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been the Leader of the House, such a question should have arisen. I do not believe that this controversy would have arisen if it had not been for the Chancellor of the Exchequer exercising what, on the Continent, they so aptly call, "the green tongue." If the Government persist in accusing me of breaking a Parliamentary agreement I am left entirely cold, and the only alternative is to refuse to make any Parliamentary bargains at all. I do not wish to do that, because I do not think it would be for the convenience of the House as a whole; but if
this course has to be adopted I feel quite certain that the Government will have more cause to regret it than we shall.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): I have no wish to say more than a very few words with regard to a misunderstanding which, I think, is more apparent than real, and a misunderstanding which, I am happy to say, I do not share. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will remember, perhaps, that on 29th April we had conversations with regard to the time to be devoted to the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions. At his suggestion I agreed to postpone our conversations on the matter until we had discovered how much time would be required for a private Bill that had been put down for 30th April. On 30th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) how far he proposed to go that evening with the Budget Resolutions. The answer he got was that that depended on the time required to dispose of the private Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remember, expressed the hope that the matter would be adjusted through the usual channels. The private Bill put down for that evening was concluded about 10.30 p.m., and during that evening I reached what I regarded as an understanding with the right hon. Gentleman, that on the concluding day on which the Budget Resolutions were to be taken the Debate on the Resolutions would end round about dinner time. On Thursday, 1st May, on the ground of those conversations, the Prime Minister stated across the Floor of the House, in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, that:
It is hoped to complete the Report stage of the outstanding Budget Resolutions and of the Resolutions relating to the Finance Bill, which have been agreed in Committee of the Whole House, by about 7.30."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1930; col. 374, Vol. 238.]
No exception was taken to that statement. That being so, I regarded the arrangement as concluded, and the business put down for 6th May was put down in the order in which it appeared on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] I am expressing now no grievance. I am happy to say that no irreparable damage has been done, but I conclude by expressing
the hope that similar misunderstandings may not arise in future, and by again stating that so far as this matter is concerned I cannot admit having been under any misapprehension at any stage of our conversations.

THEATRICAL EMPLOYERS REGIS TRATION BILL.

"to amend section thirteen of the Threatrical Employers Registration Act, 1925," presented by Mr. Shillaker; supported by Mr. Compton, Mr. Longbottom, Mr. Sitch, and Mr. Watkins; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 21st May, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

"That, in the case of the Hartlepool Gas and Water [Lords] (Certified Bill), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

"That, in the case of the River Lee (Flood Relief, &c.) [Lords] (Certified Bill), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

"That, in the case of the West Ham Corporation [Lords] (Certified Bill), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the London County Council and upon the Corporation of the City of London and Metropolitan borough councils; to amend the Acts relating to the establishment of superannuation funds by the councils of certain Metropolitan boroughs; and for other purposes." [London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords].]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1930.

CLASS III.

HOME OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £306,821, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices, including Liquidation Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation."—[Note.—£155,000 has been voted on account.]

4.0 p.m.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: The Estimates which we are considering this afternoon raise many points in connection with the administration of the Home Secretary in his very important office. One of the most important matters with which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned is the administration of justice in this country. I am fully aware of the difficulty and complexities and importance of a subject of this kind. I desire to raise, first, a matter on which certain questions have been put to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a matter of considerable public interest, particularly in relation to what we may call the full and impartial administration of the law. It arises out of the prosecution and conviction of certain individuals in connection with the distribution of subversive leaflets and pamphlets to members of His Majesty's Forces. I will give the Committee three instances which I certainly think call for the further attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
The first instance arose in connection with a prosecution, on 17th March, at the Westminster Police Court, as to which the right hon. Gentleman has already answered certain questions in the House. On that occasion three persons, a clerk and two labourers, were charged with what was called, "Insulting behaviour,
whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned," and from the evidence which was given it appeared that these three individuals were charged in connection with the distribution of leaflets to soldiers outside Chelsea Barracks. The distribution was continued despite a caution that was given to the three individuals. I wish to draw the attention of the Home Secretary particularly to the observations of the learned magistrate, not on the conduct of these three individuals so much as on the more important question which lies behind a prosecution of this kind. The magistrate asked the nature of the leaflets that were distributed, and, having been furnished with a copy, he read extracts from one document headed, "The Meaning of March 16th." References were made in the leaflets, according to the statement of the magistrate, to "The dirty liars of the Christian Protest Movement, the capitalist enemies of Europe, and the abominable slanders of priests about the Russian workers." The magistrate made this observation, "All very objectionable," and these three people were convicted and ordered to pay a penalty of 40s. or to undergo 21 days' imprisonment.
Having regard to the well-known principles of British justice, I want the Home Secretary to say why these three comparatively humble individuals have been proceeded against while the people who are mainly responsible, namely, the printers and publishers of the leaflets, who undoubtedly gave them the leaflets, have not been proceeded against. That is a very bad thing from the point of view of the administration of the law in this country. It is not an isolated case. The right hon. Gentleman at one time rather took the view, "Well, this is an isolated case, and the War Office have simply proceeded against the three people who were causing an annoyance. The War Office did not choose to bring any more important charge than that of insulting behaviour, and therefore the matter, so far as they are concerned, is at an end." I can quite well understand that the War Office dealt with the immediate situation, and that so far as they were concerned the matter was at an end with the prosecution of these three individuals; but, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said in answer to a question,
there are other points of view than that: there is the general administration of the law, for which the right hon. Gentleman is particularly responsible. I want to know why three people who are simply the instruments, the tools, of those who print and publish these leaflets, have been prosecuted and may have had to go to prison—I do not know whether they paid the fines or not—while no proceedings have been taken against the printers and publishers who, we were told, in the course of the police court proceedings, were the Communist party of Great Britain.
There was another case quite recently. All these are cases within the last few weeks. I have not undertaken research to see how many cases occurred during the last 12 months. Quite recently a private of the Royal Dental Corps was found circulating seditious literature among the troops at Shorncliffe. He was dismissed the Corps under King's Regulations, and quite rightly so, but while he has been turned out of his regiment, and has to begin life again—I do not say anything as to whether it was a sufficient punishment—again no action has been taken against the publishers. This is a matter for which the right hon. Gentleman himself is responsible, and not the Admiralty or whatever other Department is responsible for this particular Corps. I do not know who this private was or what particular walk in life he came from, but obviously he must have been the tool of the people who print and publish these leaflets.
There is a still more serious case than that. I refer to a prosecution which took place only last week in which two individuals, one 65 years of age and the other 17, were charged at Brentford Police Court. In this case, again, the charge specially chosen was that of using insulting words and behaviour to soldiers at Hounslow barracks. In this case the right hon. Gentleman is directly responsible, because this was a prosecution by the police, and Mr. Humphreys, who, if it is the same gentleman that I have in mind, is a very experienced—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman does not indicate under which Vote this comes. If it is a prosecution by the police, it would be in order under the next Vote, but not under this Vote.

Sir K. WOOD: I will leave the aspect of the police. I am not criticising in any way the action of the police. All I am doing is citing an instance in addition to those to which I have already referred. In this case these two individuals were prosecuted in respect of exactly the same kind of offence as in the other two cases. The two persons charged were ordered to pay certain fines or in default to suffer imprisonment, but the bench took such a strong view of the pamphlets which were being distributed, the objectionable nature of which would not, I think, be supported in any part of the House, that they ordered them to be destroyed. It is a very curious thing that in this case, again, no action has been taken against the printers and publishers. They were the same publishers in all three cases. The persons charged were the instruments or tools of the people who are really responsible and who ought to be punished—if an offence has been committed.
I do not want any Member of the Committee to think that the three cases I have quoted are the only ones which have occurred, because only a few days ago the Secretary of State for War stated that during the last six months there have been a number of cases in which pamphlets containing matter subversive of military discipline have been distributed amongst soldiers. That is a very serious statement to make. The Home Secretary might very well take up the attitude he has adopted in regard to an isolated case, especially as soldiers would obviously take no notice of the stuff in these pamphlets, but when we have convictions in three cases and the Secretary of State for War saying there have been a considerable number of such cases, I submit that the Home Secretary has a very considerable case to answer, and ought to say what steps he is taking in a grave matter of this kind. Like all of us, I am sure that the Home Secretary desires to see an impartial administration of justice, and what has been happening is not impartial. One Department of the State has taken action to deal with particular individuals who were found annoying the soldiers, and perhaps that is the end of it so far as that Department is concerned, but the Home Secretary stands in a different position. These cases call for much more vigorous attention from him, and I want to know
whether he is giving consideration to the question of dealing with the people who are really responsible for what has been happening.
I do not confine myself merely to the War Office and soldiers, because another statement has been made in this House which is very grave from the point of view of the Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty said in the House on 15th March that pamphlets of this nature had also been circulated among naval ratings from time to time, but that in nearly every case the distribution took place on shore. My observation on that is that obviously some distribution must have taken place on board ship, which is a very serious matter. I would point out that the statements of the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty show that these are not isolated cases, but that this distribution has been going on persistently for some time. There is also the very remarkable fact that we have had only the three prosecutions to which I have referred. It may be that proceedings have been taken against the printers and publishers, but if so I do not know of it. I know of no case where those who were really responsible for interfering with and endeavouring to prejudice the Army and Navy in this way have been the subject of proceedings. If proceedings are taken at all, there ought to be an impartial administration of justice; the consequences ought not to be visited solely on the instruments and tools of those principally concerned in the work.
I want to know from the Home Secretary what action he is taking and what is his policy. A little while ago he said that he had the power to stop subversive literature and that kind of thing. We may very well take the view that a great deal of it is not likely to do any harm, but on the other hand, one is driven to the conclusion, having regard to the events which have happened in different parts of the world that propaganda of that kind must be very harmful, especially in countries like India. I want to know what steps the Home Secretary is taking to deal with this question. It may be said that the people who should be dealt with are only small people, and do not count very much. Some observations were made in the proceedings of this House about a daily newspaper, and it was said that what was contained in that
newspaper did not matter very much because the circulation was very small. The people of this country in some respects are very easy and indulgent, but I often wonder whether it is sufficiently realised what a large number of centres there are in this country under the direction not of people in this country, but of what is called the Comintern, who are daily issuing, or issuing as often as they can, subversive and certainly disgraceful periodicals and leaflets in this country. I know of at least 11 centres and organisations of this character, and it occurs to me, as it must occur to every hon. Member of this House, that whatever views may be held about this subject we are entitled to know how on earth these people are able to do this kind of thing. I think we ought to know where the money is coming from.

Mr. THORNE: Some of it from the Tory party.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Tohrne) is entitled to his own views upon that matter. There is the case of the daily newspaper with a small circulation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has had some experience of daily newspapers, and he is aware that you cannot run a newspaper upon a very small sum of money. Somebody is financing the daily newspaper which has been referred to, and it is very important that we should know who is doing it. This newspaper has been guilty of publishing things which I do not think anyone would care to defend. The paper to which I am referring is called the "Daily Worker."

Mr. THORNE: Give them another advertisement.

Sir K. WOOD: I want to know, if the Home Secretary has power to stop this sort of thing, why he permits such things to be published. The paper to which I refer is a daily newspaper which is the organ of the Communist party, and it is associated with a section of the Communist Internationale. The object of this newspaper is to establish a Communist republic. The section I refer to is the British national section of the Comintern.

Mr. THORNE: Why did you not stop it?

Sir K. WOOD: That particular organisation was regarded by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as being of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the agreement with Soviet Russia. This particular paper is being issued day by day, and somebody is finding the money for it. Obviously, these people are receiving money, not from people in this country, but from the people for whom they say they are the agents. Has the Home Secretary given consideration to this important aspect of his administration, and has he taken any steps to find out how it is that these people, day after day, find sufficient money to be able to issue literature of the kind to which I have referred? I have not gone into details in regard to this subject, but it is sufficient for me to remind the Committee that the Home Secretary has said that his attitude in regard to this kind of propaganda is simply to ignore it. In view of the continuance of this kind of propaganda, one is driven to the conclusion that other people are financing it for purposes of their own, and in those circumstances, surely this particular matter calls for very much more serious consideration by the Home Secretary.
I can enumerate a number of periodicals which must have come to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman during his 12 months of office. I will give as instances the Young Worker, a monthly magazine, and the Communist Review, which is published monthly. There are many other publications which are put on sale periodically by the particular organisations which have been referred to and a large majority of them have published propaganda dealing with India during the last six or seven months. It is not necessary for me to develop this point any further, because I have put questions to the right hon. Gentleman upon it, and I could give instance after instance of the kind of thing which has been going on for some considerable time. What I am anxious to know is who is paying for this propaganda and where is the money coming from? The Home Secretary, having regard to the information which must be available to him, must have some knowledge as to how it is that these people, who themselves are utterly unable to find the
money, are able to finance this propaganda. I feel sure that nobody in this country is subscribing sufficient funds for this purpose, because printing and publishing information of that kind is a very expensive matter. I want to know who is finding the money, and what action the right hon. Gentleman is taking on this point?
I also want to know from the Home Secretary why it is that he is not taking steps to secure an impartial administration of justice in this country by seeing that the publishers and printers of this propaganda are prosecuted? The persons who are prosecuted at the police court are the very humble people who distribute the literature, while the printers and publishers are allowed to go scot free. What is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to all these newspapers, monthly magazines, books and pamphlets which have been distributed from no less than 10 or 11 centres in this country during the last, 12 months? What is the right hon. Gentleman's policy; has he made any inquiries as to who is financing these people, and how it is that they are able to embark upon such an expensive propaganda? I think that the Committee is entitled to some information on those points.
I wish to put a question with regard to two or three inquiries which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to make. They are inquiries which arise from the presence in this country of the nationals of Soviet Russia. I believe that since 1924 there have been in this country some 70 cases where is has not hitherto been possible to secure the deportation of certain undesirable aliens believed to be of Russian origin. I think there were 15 of these cases in 1923 and 26 in 1929. On 22nd January the Home Secretary promised that, upon the exchange of Ambassadors with Soviet Russia, he would take such steps as were open to him to secure the deportation of these people. They are people who have been convicted by our Courts and recommended for deportation, but, so far as we know and believe, they are nationals of Soviet Russia, and up to the time of the exchange of Ambassadors with Russia it has been found impossible to arrange for their deportation.
We have had to keep those people in this country all the time owing to
the refusal of the Soviet Government to admit them to Russia. How far has the Home Secretary progressed with his negotiations? Has he secured the deportation of any of these people, and what is happening to them in the interval? What restrictions are being placed upon them? Obviously some restrictions are necessary when you are dealing with people who have heed convicted of serious offences in this country, who have undergone terms of imprisonment, and who have been ordered to be deported. What has happened to them in the interval, and what steps of a restrictive character are being taken in regard to them?
Then the right hon. Gentleman promised an inquiry into the position of a number of Russian subjects who had received an order from the Soviet Consul-General in London to return to Moscow, where, apparently, they were liable, under the terms of the notice, which I think all of us read, to very drastic treatment, involving, I suppose, possible execution, under the laws of the Soviet Union. The right hon. Gentleman was going to inquire into the position of those men, and I want to know exactly what the position is, and what he is going to do in that matter. The right hon. Gentleman was also going to inquire at the same time into the position of a number of former employés of, I think, Arcos, or at any rate some Soviet organisation in this country which had dismissed a number of its employés, and thus, I suppose, throw them on the British Labour market. They were people who came over here, having received permits for the purpose of being employed by this organisation, and it dismissed them. I think the right hon. Gentleman has received a list of the names of those who have been dismissed by Soviet organisations in this country. Undoubtedly a large number of them were discharged about February of this year by Arcos, and were Russian subjects. I want to know what is the result of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry, and what he is doing with regard to these people, because we must remember that permits had been granted to them on a particular assumption.
On the general question of administration with regard to aliens, I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions in connection with what is admittedly a very difficult aspect of such
administration in this country, that is to say, whom you shall admit and whom you shall not admit. I commend the right hon. Gentleman for refusing to admit into this country Mr. Trotsky. I think he did a very wise thing in refusing to have that gentleman here, although he said that he only wanted to come to study Socialism in this country. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, at any rate so far as the Government were concerned, there was not much Socialism in this country, and, therefore, he refused to admit Mr. Trotsky; but that was not the reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave, and it is important that I should remind the Committee of the reason, because it leads me to another case upon which I want to put a question or two to the right hon. Gentleman. The reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave for refusing to admit Mr. Trotsky was that people of mischievous intention would unquestionably seek to exploit his presence for their own ends—that is to say, people in this country. Therefore, let no one say that there is not a sufficient number of people who are prepared to do that. Then I commend the right hon. Gentleman for refusing what was undoubtedly an impudent attempt under the pretence or guise of people coming into this country as a Soviet football team. I was very glad indeed to see that the right hon. Gentleman was not deceived in that connection, but it does show that there are organisations outside the country which are very anxious to get undesirable people into this country.
I also want to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it came about that a man named Isidor Dreazen, who was convicted at Manchester only last week, was able to get into this country and, undoubtedly, to pursue activities of a very reprehensible and dangerous kind. This man, I am informed—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let me know if this is correct or not—was an important member of the Executive Committee of the Third Communist International. He was described in the Courts here as a very dangerous man, indeed. He had plenty of money—I think a sum of £73 was found on him when he was convicted—and it was stated in the course of the proceedings that he had done a great deal to stir up industrial trouble in various parts of the country where it was
obvious that a great deal of harm could be done. It was stated in evidence that he had been going to various centres in the country where labour difficulties had arisen, and undoubtedly he was one of the chief instruments in stirring up industrial trouble. [Interruption.] Much as hon. Gentlemen may think this to be a matter of amusement, it is undoubtedly very serious that a man of this bad record should come over to this country, obviously plentifully supplied with money, and obviously knowing exactly where to go so far as industrial difficulty and trouble was concerned. He was finally apprehended and convicted at the Manchester Police Court, being sent to prison and recommended by the City Stipendiary for deportation. It was stated that Dreazen, who is a naturalised American of Polish birth, was behind recent strikes which had taken place, and particularly the one at Salford Docks. He pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to register under the Aliens Order, and it was stated that he arrived in the country on the 10th January, 1929, and told the authorities that he was on a business visit. It is a very serious matter if this man is, as I am informed, a member of the Executive Committee on the Third Communist International, and, although this may not, perhaps, be obvious to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it will be very obvious to the Home Secretary. I want to know exactly what information the right hon. Gentleman has in regard to that matter.
Another matter to which I want to refer is one which several Members in all parts of the House have raised so far as has been possible at Question Time, but this is our first opportunity of raising it in Debate during the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. It relates to certain proceedings for which he answers in this House, namely, the proceedings and duties of coroners. I do not think that anyone wants to cast any general reflection upon a body of men who have to discharge difficult and often anxious duties. The right hon. Gentleman has to answer in this House for coroners throughout the country. Their office is a very ancient one, and a very large number of inquests are held by them every year. They have very large powers, and, unless the Home Secretary is able in some way to deal with certain aspects of their
administration, I think there is a danger of the liberty of the subject in this country being infringed upon. One must remember that a coroner can hear statements which are not evidence in a court of law, that at a coroner's inquiry husbands and wives can be compelled to give evidence in circumstances which may incriminate a wife or a husband, and also that, in certain criminal cases, a coroner's depositions can be used against an accused person, but are rejected as improper in a civil case; and Parliament quite recently has had to intervene and has provided that, in a case where a person is brought before a magistrate on certain criminal charges, the coroner's inquiry must be adjourned until after the criminal proceedings.
5.0 p.m.
This matter has been pressed by my hon. Friends and myself. Many eminent members of the Bar are interested in it, and have taken very strong views on the situation. We have pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the question of holding an inquiry as to the duties and powers of coroners, in order to see whether sufficient safeguard exists in the case of persons who may be suspected of a crime. I do not hesitate to say that certain inquests have tended to develop into inquisitions, not to ascertain the cause of death, but, by an extensive interrogation, to secure evidence which may result in a particular individual being committed for trial. I do not think that anyone would desire for a moment to forget the necessity of a thorough inquiry into cases of serious crime, but—and this is what I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider—it is a fundamental principle of British justice that a person is innocent in the eyes of the law until the offence alleged against him has been proved. Our whole criminal system has been founded upon this rock—it can be called nothing less—for generations, and our law and system do not permit that inquiry and inquisition which are to be found in other legal systems, and under which people have to prove themselves innocent. Undoubtedly, many eminent lawyers and a large section of the public have been disturbed by the conduct in certain aspects of some recent inquiries. I will only mention two, because other Members may desire to refer to others. There was the case called the Pace case, in which the coroner's inquest lasted for four months. The woman concerned in that case was
subjected to a considerable ordeal, and, when she came up for trial at the Gloucester Assizes, the judge ruled that there was no case against her. I cannot help saying that in that case the coroner's duty was perfectly clear, it was to ascertain the cause of death. It was not his duty—and I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks can be done, whether an inquiry should not be held—it was not his duty to subject a person to four months of interrogation and examination with a view to placing a particular person on trial.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman is in order in criticising the action of the coroner. He should state the bare facts if he wishes to put a question to the Home Secretary, and ask for an inquiry.

Sir K. WOOD: I am grateful for that suggestion, and I will put it in that way, though I think it has been the custom to criticise public officers who do not stand in the position of High Court Judges. I will recite the events and put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. There is another case well known to Members of this House, and I am glad it is over, because we can look at it from a more sensible point of view than that of a great deal of the hysteria which surrounded it at the time. There is the Reading case. The coroner stated that that inquiry had been reopened for the convenience of Scotland Yard, and questions were openly passed to the coroner from the senior police officer present and put by the coroner to the witness. The Court was definitely turned into an inquiry against a particular man. The coroner doubled the part of prosecutor and Judge.
I want the Home Secretary, if he can, to lay it down definitely that a coroner's inquest shall not be used to get over the restrictions recently placed on the police in the matter of cross-examining prosecuted persons. If the police have not sufficient power, and the restrictions placed on the police do not give them sufficient authority to detect crime, the right hon. Gentleman's proper course is to come to this House and say so, but a coroner's inquiry should not be used for the purpose of adding bit after bit of evidence against a particular person who
is not charged with any offence, whose rights of representation by counsel are limited, and when it is obvious to everybody that the whole inquiry is directed not to the cause of death, but, if possible, to make a case against a particular individual.
I would be the last to say that every legitimate step ought not to be taken to detect crime. I often think that in these cases we forget the family and perhaps the widow of the man who has been murdered, and our sympathy may go out to the man who is accused. There is no doubt, however, that it is a most unfair course to permit a coroner's inquest to be used for the purpose of detection of crime in that particular fashion. I press it upon the right hon. Gentleman that the whole question of coroners' administration ought now to be inquired into. I have not been able to find out—and perhaps the Home Secretary can help me, for his sources of information are greater than mine—whether there is any particular code of laws laying down what coroners may or may not take in evidence. A man as a result of a coroner's inquest may find himself in the position that evidence which would not be admitted in the Court of law is taken at the inquest, and ultimately the man may find himself charged on a coroner's warrant for murder. It becomes very difficult in such a case as that to secure a fair trial. In Scotland there is no such officer, and all these cases which in England would come before a coroner's court are dealt with by the Procurator-Fiscal, who ensures an efficient and speedy inquiry without all the grave danger to the liberty of the subject which exists in this country. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon will be able to make some statement about what many eminent lawyers and members of the public—for it is not simply a legal matter—regard as a serious question.

Mr. MORRIS: I should like to reinforce the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman in pressing for an inquiry into the whole administration of the coroner's court; it is high time that it should be revised. Some of us have pressed in the last three or four years for that course, though not with a very great measure of success. What has been said about the change in the functions of these courts
and the necessity for an inquiry, is proved abundantly by cases brought before coroners in the last few years. In 1914 a case was tried by Mr. Justice Avory, I think at Birmingham Assizes. Mr. Justice Avory had before him a woman committed to the assizes, on a coroner's warrant alone, on a charge of murder. The case had been investigated by the magistrates before that, and they had dismissed the charge, there being no prima facie case in their view. She was committed because a good deal of evidence was admitted before the coroner which is not evidence at all in a court of law, and would not have been admitted in the Assize Court. In that case Mr. Justice Avory directed the grand jury that it must not find a true bill, because there was no admissible evidence to place before the court. The woman, however, had been committed to the Assizes, and she had to go to the expense of making adequate and proper provision for her defence, and there was public expense, although there was no reason to place her on her trial.
There was a precisely similar case last year, notwithstanding the Act of 1926, on the Oxford circuit. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, the coroners' court can now—I am not sure whether it is compelled to do so—suspend its inquiry if a man or woman has been arrested on a charge of murder. In the case in the Oxford Circuit last year, a youth of 19 or 20 years of age was charged with the murder of another boy in circumstances which eventually were found to be purely accidental. He was brought before the magistrate, who found that the firing of a gun was a pure accident and dismissed the charge. The coroner, however, reassembled his court and, admitting evidence which would not have been admissible in an ordinary prosecution, committed the boy to the Oxford Assizes. That involved, I think, bringing 17 witnesses for the prosecution, a number of witnesses for the defence, and the expense of solicitor and counsel to defend the boy in case of necessity. In that case, as in the Birmingham case, the Grant Jury threw out the bill.
There can be no justification for a system which, after an inquiry by the magistrates who have found that no prima facie case exists, permits the
coroner's inquiry to reassemble and find a verdict of manslaughter or murder as the case may be. It is a grave injustice on the parties concerned, it involves the public in unwarranted expense, and the circumstances are such that the right hon. Gentleman should institute an inquiry into the whole administration of the coroners' court. A very serious development has occurred in two or three instances in the last few years. The merits of these cases are immaterial, but let us see exactly what happens. Every sensational case gets a wide publicity in the Press, every detail is published, particularly in the Sunday papers. There is nothing, unfortunately, that the Sunday Press likes more than the accounts of murders, manslaughters and all the filthy cases they can rake up during the week and publish on Sundays.
The coroner's inquiry, with its roving examination and cross-examination inquiring into anything and everything, a good deal of which is not evidence at all, results in the whole of the inquiry being published in detail. People who have to serve on the jury at the subsequent trial at the Assizes will probably have read a good deal that would influence their minds, though it is not evidence. How can it be said, after the great publicity given to the proceedings of the coroner's inquiry, that the persons can obtain a fair and impartial trial at the hands of the jury? It must influence their minds to an extent that was not possible when the coroner's court was a far more effective instrument than it is to-day. In the circumstances I think an inquiry is urgent and essential if you are to have proper administration of justice.
Another question to which I should like to refer is that of first offenders. In this Vote there is a sum of £49,000 for the expenses of probationary officers. There is no doubt at all that great progress has been made in this country in the last few years, and particularly in the last 25 years, in the treatment of young offenders. But great progress has been made, and there is now a very wide discrepancy between the administration of the more enlightened and the more backward magistrates. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can do something to bring to the notice of some magistrates that there exists a Probationary Offenders Act. A large number of them do not appear to know of its existence
at all or, if they do, they completely ignore it. Only recently a case in one of the Eastern counties got fairly wide publicity in the Press. Three boys were charged for the first time with the small offence of having taken some street lamps belonging to the corporation. They had exemplary characters. They were tried by a bench of three magistrates, convicted, and given six strokes of the birch. If anyone ought to have been birched it was the magistrates for giving such a sentence.
In many cases, even when magistrates apply the Probationary Offenders Act, they register a conviction. The more enlightened magistrates do not register a conviction. It is very material to the boy, not only at that time but for the sake of his after life, because if a conviction is registered, certain avenues are closed to him. You close the possibility of his enlisting in the Army or the Navy, and you close any opportunity for him making a career in the Colonies, and probably he, of all boys, is the type who would make good. The case I have cited is so ridiculous that it ought to be possible to remove magistrates of that type from the bench altogether. But even in other cases there should be no registration of conviction.
The Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders, which reported in 1927, made two recommendations with regard to probation officers. The first was that their salaries should be increased to such an extent that you would get a higher type of man appointed. I should like to know what steps have been taken in that direction and what type of person is being recruited into the service to-day. The second recommendation was that the probation officer should have a closer connection with such institutions as reformatory, industrial and Borstal schools, where there would be opportunities for the interchange of experience between them and the teachers and head masters. This is very material, because it enables you to combine the experience of the probation officer in his own sphere and the knowledge of the boy's family circumstances contributed by the head master of the school. All this is of great importance when you come to deal with what is, after all, the most difficult part of the whole of your criminal jurisdiction, the reformation of
the young offender, making him a fit and useful citizen in after-life.
With regard to cases of fines, provision has now been made, particularly in regard to young offenders under the Act of 1914, for allowing time in cases where fines are imposed. A fine can only be enforced ultimately by imprisonment. In 1910, when time was not permitted, the number of people who were committed to prison in default of payment was about six times what it is to-day. But the provisions, even as they stand, work harshly, not only with regard to young offenders but even with regard to people above 21. A case came to my notice a week ago of a man who had not, for some reason, taken out a barrow licence. He was fined and given a month to pay. Unfortunately he became a victim of appendicitis and spent three weeks in bed, with the result that he was in a worse position to pay at the end of the month than when the fine was imposed. The position is that he is not brought before the Magistrate at the end of the month, but the police fetch him and take him to gaol without any opportunity of explaining why he has not been able to pay. There ought to be an opportunity in these cases of stating the case to the Magistrate before committal to prison takes place. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] He can make an application to the Magistrate if he gets there in time, but there is no obligation once the sentence is passed, and the police can take him and put him into gaol. I am asking for the right to go before the Magistrate before he is committed to prison. I do not know whether I am in order on this Vote in dealing with police training.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay): On the next Vote.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I desire to join in the representation that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there should be some further inquiry into the powers and practices of Coroners' Courts. I hope my right hon. Friend will not take advantage of the fact that Parliament has carefully revised the powers of coroners, and that in the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, very considerable improvements were effected in the administration of those courts. In particular, that Statute ended a matter
which gave rise to considerable scandals from time to time, the continuance of proceedings in the Coroners' Court contemporaneously with proceedings about the same matter in the Criminal Courts. The reason why I support this appeal is founded on some experience of these matters. There are various Members of the House who have occupied the position of coroners, and no one here would desire to criticise these men who, in the main, discharge their office with great efficiency. Whereas in times long past these officers were charged with the duty of finding the circumstances and causes of death, and while, through the centuries, they have continued to discharge that function, there has gradually grown up a system of criminal justice which has put into the hands of other officials those duties which many coroners have continued to discharge.
It cannot be complained that coroners are doing things not warranted by the Statutes that regulate their duties. In the 1926 Statute, opportunity was taken to recast the duties of Coroners' Courts, and, therefore, the duty still remains upon them to investigate generally into the circumstances and the cause of death. The special circumstance that we bring before my right hon. Friend's attention to-day is that, considering the growth of the modern system of criminal justice, which has made other provision for questions which coroners have been in the habit of investigating for many years, it is not desirable that this overlapping should continue. The practical suggestion that we make is that these courts should be restricted to finding the cause of death. The 1887 Statute, which regulates these duties, and which was amended by the 1926 Statute, sets out that the coroner is called upon, for instance, to find whether the deceased came to his death by murder or manslaughter. That opens an extraordinarily wide area, which coroners naturally continue to exercise, and the suggestion we make is that there should be a departmental inquiry, if necessary, to consider whether the investigation of matters connected with murder and manslaughter carried on in the ordinary Criminal Courts should suffice, and that coroners should not be required to continue proceedings which cover the same ground. In 1926 we stayed proceedings
that overlapped and I am now joining in an appeal for an inquiry to restrict the duty of coroners to finding the cause of death, leaving to the ordinary Criminal Courts the investigation of the circumstances that led to it.
The right hon. Gentleman called attention to the case of a person who was convicted of distributing leaflets, in the course of which he was guilty of insulting behaviour, and for the offence of insulting behaviour he was convicted. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the printers and publishers of the leaflets which the convicted person happened to be distributing were not also proceeded against. The right hon. Gentleman knows that until you have convicted one person for one offence you do not proceed against another person.

Sir K. WOOD: It is true that a particular charge was chosen against this man, but the hon. and learned Gentleman knows far better than I that it is a matter for the prosecution in such cases whether they take a number of charges. In this particular case—I think in all three cases—the convenient method of procedure was to charge them with insulting behaviour, but, as the magistrate said, in all the cases, the gravamen of the offence was the distribution of these leaflets. A considerable time, in fact nearly the whole of the time, of the Court was occupied in examining the contents of the leaflets, and in all these cases, I think, the magistrate severely commented on the character of the leaflets which had been distributed. My point to the Home Secretary is that in the administration of justice, whatever offence you may choose to bring against these poor individuals, who are simply the tools of the people who publish the leaflets, you should not proceed against them and leave the real perpetrators of the mischief untouched and unpunished.

Mr. KNIGHT: The right hon. Gentleman is now assuming that in this case an offence was committed which was not proved. The only charge was that of insulting behaviour.

Sir K. WOOD: In one case they ordered the leaflets to be destroyed.

Mr. KNIGHT: I will give the three cases in order to show that they are not connected. If one person was convicted of insulting behaviour in distributing the leaflet, it does not follow that the leaflet
he was distributing was actionable. There is no evidence before this Committee, nor was there before the Court, that such was the character of the leaflet. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid that he is giving his own view of the matter.

Sir K. WOOD: The leaflets were ordered to be destroyed.

Mr. KNIGHT: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is confusing the case. I am now coming to the second case, where I should not be surprised to learn that the leaflets were ordered to be destroyed, because that was the case of a soldier carrying seditious literature—[Interruption.] I am within the recollection of the Committee. The second case to which he referred was the case of a soldier carrying seditious literature.

Sir K. WOOD: The third case.

Mr. KNIGHT: Naturally, if the court thinks that literature is seditious, it will order it to be destroyed. I am trying to help the Committee in showing that there is discrimination between a case of seditious literature and the case of a person who is merely charged with insulting behaviour and convicted. The third case was also one of insulting words and behaviour. These persons were in possession of leaflets, which fact, apparently, very much annoyed the right hon. Gentleman. He regards the leaflets also, I presume, as seditious leaflets, but as to that there is no evidence. There was no evidence before the court and there is no evidence before this Committee. Frankly, when the right hon. Gentleman impugns the administration of the present Home Secretary in respect of three cases which are not on the same footing, he is not doing himself justice.

Sir K. WOOD: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. Perhaps he will explain why the court ordered the leaflets to be destroyed.

Mr. KNIGHT: In the second case I said that as the leaflets were held to be seditious literature, naturally the court would order them to be destroyed, but in the other cases the persons were charged, with insulting behaviour in the one case, and with insulting words and behaviour in the other, and the publications concerned were not impugned.
I want to make this general observation on this part of the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman. He complained of a certain publication—a newspaper—and suggested throughout his observations that this publication was merely the vehicle of sedition. I hope that my right hon. Friend is not going to suggest to the Committee or to use words open to the construction that any political publication which advances views which he does not share may be of a seditious character. We have left behind us the days, unfortunately not far distant, when any person who held views as to the late War which were not shared by the then Director of Public Prosecutions, was liable to be brought before the court and charged with a whole series of offences. I see opposite a Noble Lord who bears a name which is famed in connection with freedom of speech. We want to watch the exercise of these rights as closely as any hon. Gentleman may desire to watch them. This House rests on the foundation of freedom of speech. Suggestions that a daily paper of a political character is necessarily a vehicle of sedition, and that persons who holds views probably not shared by anybody in this House are persons who ought to come within the strict eye of my right hon. Friend who now presides over the Home Office, are suggestions which, I hope, the House of Commons, in pursuance of its old traditions, will not accept for one moment. I ask the Committee, on reflection, to refuse to regard these cases and the matters connected with them, which have so much affected the right hon. Gentleman, as matters of serious complaint. I most cordially join with the right hon. Gentleman in the suggestion that with regard to coroners' courts there should be an inquiry with a view to an improvement of that administration.

Lord ERSKINE: I do not propose to go into the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), because I did not hear of the particular cases which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) quoted in his speech before I came into the House. I think that the hon. Member rather mistook the purport of my right hon. Friend's remarks. Obviously a daily paper, no matter what political views it may happen to hold, cannot be said to be seditious, but there
may be in any paper certain articles which are against the law of the land.

Mr. KNIGHT: If proved and convicted.

Lord ERSKINE: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that you have to prove that these particular articles are seditious. The only thing that my right hon. Friend did when he raised this particular case was to bring before the Committee the point, that if you prosecute at all, it is better, if the leaflets were really seditious, to prosecute the people responsible for them. I think that that was the only point which my right hon. Friend was trying to make. I do not desire to enter into this Debate in any critical spirit. My only excuse in intervening is the four very constructive years which I spent in the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman now presides in a very junior position indeed. I had a happy time there during the last Parliament and I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very quiet time which he has had administratively during the year in which he has been in office. It is a great change from what my Noble Friend Lord Brentford had to put up with.
Somebody once said that life was "one damn thing after another." It may be that the Home Office in the last Parliament found that that was so. We had the Arcos raid, we had the maintenance of law and order during the year 1926, and, in the end, there was the Savage case. The Home Office during the last Parliament had a great deal of criticism to meet. I am sure that all the right hon. Gentleman requires is to have peace during his term of administration. Not only has he not had to face administrative worries, but I think he has had rather more peace than usual from legislative worry. I remember in the 1922 Parliament, Lord Bridgeman, the then Home Secretary, having had his weekends for the tenth time spoilt by Private Members' Bills, came down to the House on a Friday and began his speech by saying,
I will now make my usual Friday afternoon remarks.
I do not think that the present Home Secretary has had as many Private Bills to deal with as most Home Secretaries. I hope that he will continue to preside
as he does over the Home Office, and that he will have a quiet time and will not have the same sort of criticism as was directed against the Noble Lord who preceded him in the last Parliament. I desire to ask a few questions of the Home Secretary. I should like to raise the question of alien administration. I do not suppose that there is anybody in this Committee who thinks that the Aliens Order—

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I understood—I do not know whether it is correct—that we cannot raise alien administration on this Vote.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is in order in raising this question.

Lord ERSKINE: I wanted to raise the question of the administration of the Aliens Order. I think no one in this Committee, possibly, regards Aliens Orders as being a really permanent part of our Constitution. They were introduced at a time when unemployment was exceedingly rife, and, unfortunately, there is even more unemployment now than there has been for some years. I understand that the Home Secretary administers these Orders in very much the same way as preceding Home Secretaries have done. That is to say, they are administered on the principle that no man shall be allowed to come here and take work which an Englishman or Scotsman could do if such an alien had not arrived. That is a very good principle, though it may not, perhaps, be agreed to by everybody in this Committee. I remember the present First Commissioner of Works at one time make a very violent speech against these particular Orders.
I do not think, while we have unemployment as bad as it is to-day, that anyone is seriously going to challenge these Orders as being improper. Of course, they can be carried too far. If we look back in history, it is obvious that we can find cases where the non-admittance of aliens or the expulsion of aliens has proved very disastrous to the particular country which has indulged in it. Spain, for instance, when they expelled the Moors under Philip II or when they expelled the Jews under Ferdinand and Isabel, did not do a very great deal to help themselves. Nevertheless, as long as unemployment continues rife in
this country, I have no doubt that these Aliens Orders will remain in force. I should like to ask the Home Secretary one or two questions upon them.
Is the Home Secretary satisfied that week-end tickets are not abused, and that the daily tickets, which I believe can be got for travelling from the Continent, are not also abused? Is there a proper check upon the people who come in on these week-end and daily tickets, and is the Home Secretary satisfied that the people who come in are checked out again? Moreover, there are always arriving in our ports ships of various nationalities, with crews and passengers. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that some aliens who cannot support themselves do not get into the country by deserting from the ships at the various ports? Can he assure us that, in spite of the obvious loopholes that must exist for the entry of aliens, he is able to administer the Aliens Orders as they were intended to be administered, and that he is now checking as many aliens out as come in.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich asked whether the Home Secretary had found it easier to deport Russians since the Soviet Government had been recognised by His Majesty's Government. I may be wrong, but it has been my impression that it was not only after the Soviet Embassy had been expelled from this country that we found it difficult to get rid of people who we thought were of Russian nationality. I believe that difficulty has existed ever since the War. You can only deport a man to his own country. You cannot, for instance, deport a Frenchman to Germany, or a German to Italy. Unless you can find out the nationality of a man you are unable to deport him. Apparently, what has been happening in regard to Russian subjects for a very long time, long before the expulsion of the Soviet Embassy, was that if the Soviet administration did not like a man they claimed to have no knowledge of him. If we thought that the man was a Russian and we could not prove that he was anything else and we sent him to Russia, they refused to accept him and he had to come back here. There was no way in which we could enforce the deportation order that may have been made. Therefore, the expulsion of the
Russian Embassy had nothing to do with the difficulty of getting rid of undesirable Russians from this country. It would be interesting if the Home Secretary could say whether he has found since the relations have been resumed that it has been easier to get rid of people who we think are Russian subjects and who in the past have been stated by the Russian Government to belong to some other country.
In regard to the Aliens Order, has there been any change respecting domestic servants? I have heard, but I do not know whether it is true, that these regulations have been relaxed to a certain extent. Perhaps they have more to do with the Ministry of Labour than with the Home Office, and that the Home Secretary has to give his sanction to what the Minister of Labour desires in this respect. Can he say whether there has been any relaxation of the very stringent order in regard to domestic servants? I should like to raise also the question of the Industrial Museum in Horseferry Road. Are the great advantages of this museum being understood and appreciated? Anyone who has taken the trouble to go to the Industrial Museum will agree that it ought to be a very great advantage to our industry, because any manufacturer can go there and find out the best means of fencing machinery or the newest methods for the protection of the workers. A great deal of money has been spent on the Industrial Museum and it costs a certain amount of money to keep it up, and it would be a great pity if the fact that this museum exists was not known widely all over the country. We all want to minimise accidents in industry and when the State has spent large sums of money in order to set up a museum which can show manufacturers the best methods of fencing and protection, it would be a very good thing if the museum could be advertised a little better than it has been up to now.
Does the Home Secretary think that the money spent on the Museum has been worth while, and is he getting any more inquiries than there have been in the past from people who desire to protect their workers, and to have the best machinery? Can he also tell us whether the number of people who visit the Museum is growing? I saw in the Press
the other day an article by an enterprising correspondent who said that he visited the Museum and found nobody there and almost had to wake up the man who was supposed to show people round. I should think that was a highly-drawn account of what happens in the Museum. I am sure that the Museum has done a great deal of good, and every hon. Member will hope that it will long exist to do a great deal more.
A great deal has been said about coroners' courts. I do not know much about coroners but we have had a very interesting Debate, and the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) were certainly instructive. I am sure the Home Secretary will pay attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich, and the general interest which has been shown in all quarters of the House in regard to the fears that in the administration of the coroners' courts in certain cases, people have had the dice loaded against them, and that in certain famous or notorious trials during the last two years there has been a feeling of suspicion among many people that the law in this respect might be altered. As the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham said, the criminal law has now been brought more up to date and therefore the coroners' courts have become more out of date, and hon. Members would like to know whether it would be possible in the future to bring them up to date. In conclusion I hope the Home Secretary, while he occupies his office, will have a quieter time than he has had up to now.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The remarks of the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) prove the impossibility of certain people getting justice in this country. He stated that certain persons were charged with insulting behaviour in respect to the distribution of two leaflets, but he admitted that the case before the Court was not concerned with the charge of insulting behaviour but with what was contained in the leaflets. The question is not the prosecution of the printers but that these persons were charged with a particular offence. As they could not be convicted on the charge preferred against them, the prosecution
went outside the charge in order to secure a conviction. The right hon. Gentleman complained spout someone else not being prosecuted, but from the facts it would appear that these men were convicted outside the charge made against them, and convicted on another charge, which was not the subject of inquiry before the Court.

Sir K. WOOD: In my opinion they were treated in a very merciful fashion. The charge was laid upon a minor charge, that of insulting behaviour. If a more serious charge had been preferred against them and there had been a conviction, the sentence would have been much more serious.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That does not cover the point. Whether they ought to have been charged with another offence was a question for the prosecution. The prosecution decided to prosecute for insulting behaviour, but the insulting behaviour was not the material contained in the leaflet. In order to get a conviction the prosecution went outside the charge and read the literature; but they were not charged with the seditious character of the literature but with insulting behaviour. That shows that in certain courts these men cannot secure justice, and that in order to secure a conviction any sort of rig-up will he allowed to take place. Even though these men hold unpopular opinions they are entitled to fairness of trial, and when they are brought before the magistrates and charged with insulting behaviour, the charge of insulting behaviour ought to be the subject dealt with, and not what was in the documents which they happened to be distributing at the time.
Hon. Members opposite seem to be annoyed about this matter. They were supporters of the last Government. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich was a Member of the Government in 1926, and the last speaker was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary in 1926. What happened then in regard to the general strike? If anyone was responsible for the general strike it was not so much the rank and file as the leaders. What did the Government do at that time? They took little humble men in the various villages and prosecuted them, while as to the leaders the Home Secretary invited them to Buckingham Palace, to dine with them.

Sir K. WOOD: In my area, where I was the Commissioner, we had the pleasure of prosecuting the Secretary of the National Executive of the Labour party.

Mr. BUCHANAN: While the Government were prosecuting poor people in St. Helens and in various villages, they did not prosecute the leaders of the Trade Union Congress General Council, but they invited the leaders to Buckingham Palace. For sheer impertinence I have never heard the like. During the general strike if a crime was committed—and in the eyes of the Government the general strike was a crime—the men who now sit on the Front Government Bench, men like the Lord Privy Seal, were left alone, and while small people were prosecuted you sent for the leaders to dine at Buckingham Palace and you attended to dine with them.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: If they dined at Buckingham Palace they did not derail trains.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Everyone knows that during that period you excused things from the great people or the alleged great people, and you prosecuted comparatively minor people. I want to raise a point in connection with the fees which have to be paid by aliens who desire to become British citizens. There are a number of aliens in my division who have been living in this country for 30 and 40 years. In most cases they are poor people but, nevertheless, their character and general mode of life is beyond all question of the best. The police authorities and everyone else agree that there is nothing against them from the point of view of their general character. British citizenship should not be based on a money qualification but upon character and capacity, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this question. Some of these people in my own division were in the Army during the War; some of them, in fact, drew pensions because they had sons in the War. They are not debarred from becoming citizens merely because of the £10 fee but the right hon. Gentleman knows that in addition there is additional expenditure which must be met by these people. If a person's character and qualifications are proved I suggest that he
should reduce the money qualification and make it easier for the poorer section of our alien population to become British citizens. It would be much better for all concerned.
There is also the question of delay. When a man applies to become a British citizen and there is nothing against him, not even the inability to pay the fee, his application is held up for years; he gets no kind of answer at all. It seems to me that the Home Office allows a certain quota to pass every year, perhaps 100 or 200, and that if you are beyond that number you must wait for another year. I have had to write to the Home Office on behalf of men who are my political opponents. Some of them are good employers, paying good wages; and the Home Office admits that they are of good character. The police also agree that they should be naturalised British citizens, there is no opposition whatever, yet for years their applications have remained dormant. Something ought to be done to speed up the machinery. If a man's character is good, and his qualifications are good, I do not see why you should make him go through the long process of waiting for years and years. I have at least eight cases where men have been waiting for two and three years without getting a definite answer one way or another; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether he cannot speed up the machinery.
The question of the administration of justice, for which the Home Secretary is responsible, does not touch us in Scotland and I will, therefore, not refer to it. I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising the question of the inspection of factories. Some time ago the Home Office appointed a Committee to go into the question of the number of inspectors, and it has been agreed that the number at present is quite insufficient for the work that has to be done. I understand that the Report has been issued, and I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to act upon the recommendations of the Committee and appoint extra inspectors of factories. In Scotland the number of inspectors is altogether insufficient for the needs of the area, particularly in the West of Scotland, where you have springing up factories which are employing more and more women. There is a great need of additional women inspectors. I hope
that the right hon. Gentleman will also reconsider the position of certain men who are now in prison for what in my view was a political offence. The right hon. Gentleman says that they were guilty of a criminal offence. I take the view that they are in gaol for a political offence, and I think he should take steps to release them at the earliest possible moment.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: I desire to refer to some of the important questions which were raised by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and to touch upon one or two other matters which also seem to me worthy of consideration. The first question raised by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich was the question of subversive propaganda and the administration of justice in connection therewith. That is a matter to which every Member of this House, and every thinking person outside, would attach the utmost importance because there is ample ground for suggesting that it is the British system of the administration of justice that has done more than any one other thing to raise this country to a position of pre-eminence amongst the nations of the world. It would be a great misfortune if any course was taken which seemed to discriminate unfairly between one class and another. I know it is rather a popular theme with some hon. Members opposite to discourse on the difference of the law, one law for the rich and another law for the poor, and to suggest that there is a differentiation; but personally I do not believe there are any substantial grounds for suggesting that this is the case so far as the actual administration of justice is concerned. Therefore it fills one with a certain amount of apprehension if there is anything in the suggestion that men are proceeded against for a lesser offence, such as the distribution of handbills and using insulting behaviour in connection therewith, whilst those who are responsible for what is a far more serious matter, provided it can be proved to the satisfaction of the Court—namely, the publication and printing of seditious literature, are allowed to go scot free.
The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) attempted to constitute himself a kind of counsel for the defence of the Home Secretary, and
suggested that with regard to the question of seditious leaflets there was no evidence before the Court that they were in fact seditious, and that therefore we had no right in this House to assume that such was the case. That is exactly the point.

Mr. KNIGHT: In the second case I said quite clearly that the literature was seditious and that it was ordered to be destroyed as such.

Sir G. RENTOUL: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. In that event I should like to ask this question of the Home Secretary: Why were not proceedings taken against the printers and publishers in that particular case, in which there appears to be no doubt whatever as to the seditious nature of the publication? With regard to the other case I want to press the point that the Home Secretary will tell us whether he has considered, in conjunction with his legal advisers and with the chief Law Officers of the Crown, the question whether there are any grounds for proceeding against the printers and publishers. Perhaps he has been advised that he could not substantiate the case, but if he will tell us it would reassure our minds and we should know that attention is being directed to this aspect of the matter. I rather gathered from his speech that he has not considered that aspect but takes the view that it is a rather trumpery and trivial question about which he need not bother.
The same question arises in connection with these newspapers. The hon. and learned Member for Nottingham South said that the time had long gone by when we should regard as seditious anything with which we happened to disagree. The hon. and learned Member knows that we do not take that ground. We have had quotations from this newspaper to-day, showing that it openly advocated rebellion in India on a certain day, and there can be no dispute but what that amounts to seditious incitement. Again I press upon the Home Secretary to give the Committee the benefit of his considered view on this matter, and why he has not thought it wise or right to take proceedings in this case, in which undoubtedly proceedings could have been properly taken.
I pass now to the next question raised by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich—the
position of the former employés of Arcos. I think we have a right to ask for further information on this matter, because it has been the subject of many Parliamentary questions during the past few months—questions which have evoked some very curious answers from the Home Secretary, answers which leave the whole position in a great deal of uncertainty. What is the situation as far as we can gather? I quote from an authority which will be acceptable to hon. Members opposite, namely, the "Daily Herald," and I find it stated on 18th February that a large number of the employés of Arcos had been discharged from their employment; that no definite reason for these discharges had been given, and that most of the people affected were Russian subjects. Subsequently it was stated that about 200 employés had been dismissed. On 23rd February, an interview with Mr. Schostak, one of the directors of Arcos, was published. This gentleman said:
It is true that this week-end we have dismissed about 40 to 60 of the employés in the accounts and financial departments because we have installed calculating machines.
The Home Secretary was then questioned about the matter. He admitted that a large number had been dismissed, and said that he was making further inquiries, and was directing his inquiries particularly to the question of whether these employés were returning to Russia or were to be thrown on the British labour market. Nearly two months have elapsed while, presumably, the right hon. Gentleman was pursuing his inquiries. On 1st May, he said that only 11 of these people had been dismissed—which conflicts entirely with the statement made by one of the directors of Arcos that 40 to 60 were affected, and also with the statement made elsewhere that the number was about 200. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the majority of the 11 concerned were in business on their own account, and that he had received a guarantee—I do not know from whom—that they would not be any burden on the British labour market. He added that he was still making inquiries. As that was only a few days ago it is to be assumed that those inquiries are continuing. The right hon. Gentleman was previously asked whether his attention had been called to
an order issued by the Soviet Consul-General that these Russian subjects should return, and a subsequent publication to the effect that they were liable to execution in Russia for not having obeyed that order. Again the right hon. Gentleman answered that he was making inquiries about the whole position. I submit that the time has arrived when those inquiries ought to be complete, and that it is reasonable to expect that the right hon. Gentleman should now be in a position to give the House the fullest information on this matter. Presumably, be considered the matter one of sufficient importance to justify him in embarking on detailed inquiries but, as to the result of those inquiries, the House has not yet received any information whatever.
Another matter which has been raised during this discussion is the question of the position of coroners. It is a vitally important matter as affecting the liberty of the subject, and, unquestionably one or two unsatisfactory cases have occurred in recent times. The right hon. Gentleman some months ago, in reply to a question, did not deny the existence of those unsatisfactory cases, but he brushed them on one side. He said that they were very few. He said that some 30,000 inquests had been held during 1927 and suggested that we need not trouble much about a few isolated cases out of that number. I suggest that that is not quite a sound position to take up on this question. The vast majority of inquests are purely formal. In connection with very few does any question of a criminal charge arise at all, but it is just in reference to that minority of cases, the cases in which criminal proceedings may ensue, that the public mind is becoming seriously apprehensive owing to the course adopted in some of these inquiries. There has been a widespread demand for reform in this matter, in spite of the Coroners Act of three years ago, and that demand has not been confined to any section of the community or any political party. It has come from newspapers of the most varied opinions, from the legal profession and from the mass of the general public.
If one follows the course of events at some inquests, one finds that there is foundation for the suspicion that a coroner's inquest may be utilised to get over difficulties which the police may feel owing to the restrictions recently placed
upon them as the result of certain inquiries. Reference has been made to the instance of an inquest at Reading where there seemed to be a definite alliance between the coroner and the police. Indeed, the Reading coroner said, publicly, that he had resumed his inquiry at the express wish of Scotland Yard. I respectfully suggest that that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I understand that the Home Secretary has no direct authority over coroners, but many people feel that a coroner ought to be restricted to inquiring into the cause of death, and that the coroner's inquest should not be used as an instrument to try to bring home guilt to any person, especially as evidence can be produced before a coroner which would be inadmissible in the other Courts. That inadmissible evidence is widely published in the columns of the Press at a time when popular newspapers have circulations running into millions, and when special prominence is given to these cases. Thus, it is very difficult in many instances for a jury to avoid having their minds prejudiced by views which they have read in the Press as to what took place at the inquest. Then, at an inquest the man against whom suspicion is directed is not accorded the full protection of counsel which he gets in other Courts. Many coroners have laid it down that counsel are only permitted, more or less as a favour, to cross-examine or put questions at an inquest, and that they have no right to utilise their functions for the protection and defence of their clients as in the ordinary criminal Courts.
I take this opportunity of directing the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some other points, and the first of these relates to the terrible cinema disaster which occurred recently at Paisley. We know that there have been criminal proceedings and that the accused man, the manager of the theatre, has been acquitted. It seems beyond dispute, however, that many lives were lost on that occasion owing to certain doors which ought to have been in full use not being available. I wish to know what are the powers of the Home Secretary with regard to the supervision and control of cinema theatres? Has he powers which can be exercised in order to prevent the possibility, as far as he can humanly do so,
of any such terrible tragedy occurring again in any of the cinemas of this country?
Then, with regard to the film censorship, I wish to know if the Home Secretary is taking any steps, and, if so, what steps, to ensure that the control of the British Board of Film Censors is universally accepted in this country? I understand that the present position is that the British Board of Film Censors is a purely voluntary body constituted by the trade, but that every film has to be licensed before it can be exhibited in public under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, and that many local authorities—perhaps the majority—make it a condition of granting such licence that the film should have received the certificate of this voluntary body. On the other hand, many authorities do not impose that condition. I gather that it has been the consistent policy of the Home Office for many years to try to influence the licensing authorities to insert that condition. The right hon. Gentleman himself evidently felt that the position was not entirely satisfactory when he came into office, because, last December, he issued a circular letter to the licensing authorities, in which this passage appears:
Mr. Clynes earnestly hopes that those local authorities who have not hitherto thought it necessary to adopt the condition recommended by the Home Office in 1923 will consider, without delay, the desirability of doing so, and that all local authorities who have already adopted the condition or decided to adopt it, will take the necessary steps to see that it is enforced.
I hope that the Home Secretary will tell the House what response there has been to that circular letter, and what proportion of the licensing authorities make it a condition of granting a licence that the certificate of the Board of Control should have been obtained? If there are many who do not insert that condition, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is possible to take any further steps to bring pressure to bear upon them? This is a very important matter. I know that the subject of film censorship is a controversial one. There are some people who would like to abolish the censorship altogether. I think, however, that the majority of people do not take that view, but, on the contrary, feel that some degree of
censorship is essential in view of the large number of young people who attend cinemas every week at a very impressionable period of their lives.
I remember the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech some time ago, was showing in picturesque fashion the wonderful progress which has been made in the last 60 or 70 years—under the capitalist system—and he mentioned that over 33,000,000 people attend the cinema every week. That is a very astonishing figure and, having regard to the enormous number of young people included in that total, some sort of censorship seems to be eminently desirable. We should like to know what steps the Home Secretary is taking to uphold the prestige, the influence and the authority of the British Board of Film Censors? I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will consider these points of sufficient importance to justify him in giving the House all the information which he has at his disposal in regard to them.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I shall not detain the Committee long, and I do not think I would have risen at all but for the provocative speech of the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who opened the discussion. I wish he were as correct on every point as he was with regard to those details which he read from some police court proceedings. May I say, first, that I very much regret that we had not got the report of the chief inspector of factories before we secured a discussion on the Home Office Vote. I regard that report as exceedingly important, and it would be of great assistance if we could have it in future before we come to this annual Debate on the Home Office Vote. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich is always very excited about Russian affairs, but he divides Russians in this country into two categories. He is very much concerned about one category. If a man from Moscow comes here to work and disavows the Soviet regime, he wants to allow him to remain in this country.

Sir K. WOOD: I did not say so.

Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman suggested it. The Conservative party is always very much concerned about any Russian subject who comes
here to work and who disavows the Soviet Government. [Interruption.] They do not want him executed, anyhow; but if any Russian is recommended for deportation by the Courts, they do not mind, apparently, if he is executed three or four times over. The right hon. Gentleman was very eloquent about the men who were discharged from Russian trading concerns. It might interest him to know that most of the employés of the Russian trading concern are members of my trade union, and that, so far as trade unionism is concerned, Russian trading concerns are no different from all other employers.

The CHAIRMAN: We had better leave that alone.

Mr. DAVIES: Anyway, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was mainly concerned with calling revenge upon somebody. He wanted to prosecute the owners of newspapers, and I agree with the suggestions that have been made that to advertise those newspapers does not do any good at all. I want to turn to another point on what may be the experience of other Members of Parliament as well as my own. I have had more than one case brought to my notice where a German lived in this country before the War and married an Englishwoman, and had children born in this country. In consequence of the War, the man was deported to his own country, where he is now residing with his family. There are several little tragedies connected with cases of that kind. In one such case that I know of, an Englishwoman, with two daughters born in this country, is living with her husband and family in Germany, and it is impossible for them to come here unless work can be found for the husband and father. I would like cases of that kind to be treated with a great deal of sympathy, because in such cases the Englishwoman and her British-born children have to pay the penalty of living in a foreign country. The best thing to do, if a suitable occupation can be found for the husband, is to secure the return of such a family to this country. I know it is a very difficult problem, because some people complain that Germans, Austrians, and other foreigners come over here and take jobs that Britishers could perform. But that is an assertion that cannot very well be proved, because
the Ministry of Labour lays it down very strictly that no foreigners shall be allowed to come here to perform tasks that can be carried out by British labour.
I want now to turn to another topic. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to tell us what is actually transpiring in connection with the report that was issued in March, 1927, by a Committee which inquired very exhaustively into the treatment of young offenders. The report and the recommendations of that Committee were divided into two parts. It required a great deal of legislation if some of the recommendations were to be adopted, but there were a great many things that the Home Office could do by sheer administrative acts. I have here a copy of the recommendations that were made, and I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would interest the Committee and the country at large if he would tell us what has happened in regard to those recommendations. There was the question of juvenile courts, and there was a point about probation, which are matters almost entirely for the Home Office to deal with through the courts of law. I will, however, leave that question, because other speakers, I am sure, will desire to raise it. I think we should not leave this Vote to-day without some reference to what was commenced some years ago by way of education in prisons, and I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the Committee something on that subject too. A great deal has been done in the past, by way of education, to teach those who are in prison to become better citizens when they return to civil life.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but there is a special Vote dealing with prisons, namely, Vote 4, which is not under consideration now.

Mr. DAVIES: I will leave that question. I happened in 1926, I think it was, to sit through the whole of the proceedings in this House and in a Standing Committee when we passed the Amendment Act in connection with coroners' duties. We thought when we passed that Act that we had amended the Coroners' Acts to such an extent that there would be no difficulty in future in connection with their duties, but lo and behold,
greater difficulties, I think, have arisen since the passing of that Act than ever before, and so far as I have been able to gather—and I have tried to make myself conversant with one or two aspects of the problem—I am sure that something will have to be done to deal effectively with the points that were raised by an hon. Member this afternoon on this issue. I do not know anything about the law, but I am informed very definitely that some coroners are dissatisfied with the present state of the law, and I am positive that the legal profession too, are dissatisfied with the present position.
In conclusion, let me say once again that I think it would be well if, in dealing with the Home Office Vote, we had always before us, though it has very seldom been the case hitherto, the annual report of the chief factory inspector. There are several factory and workshop questions upon which we could touch, but as we have not that report before us, we cannot do anything to enlighten ourselves on it this afternoon. As stated, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what has actually been done with regard to the recommendations of the Committee which dealt with juvenile offenders, and I should like to know also if the work of education in prisons is still continuing under the present régime. I feel sure—

The CHAIRMAN: I have already said that that does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. DAVIES: I forgot, and, having put my point, I apologise. I close with suggesting once more that, in connection with coroners' duties, the Home Office will conduct some form of inquiry in order to clear up the problems with which the coroners are confronted at present.

Sir BASIL PETO: I feel that I should apologise to the Committee for asking its attention to another question. When I saw the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) get up, I thought he would probably raise this question. I am going to ask the Home Secretary to exercise the powers conferred upon him, I believe, by the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, to stop making the provisions of that Act a widespread net all over the country for collecting money to be invested in totalisators on racecourses. It would not be in order for me to suggest any amendment of the legislation, and I am only going to point out to the
Home Secretary the powers which he actually has under the Act. In Section 3, Sub-section (6), of the Act, it is provided that the Racecourse Betting Control Board
shall (subject to the payment out of the totalisator fund of all taxes, rates, charges, and working expenses, and to the retention of such sums as they think fit to meet contingencies, and to the payment out of the said fund of such sums as they think fit to charitable purposes) apply the moneys from time to time comprised in the totalisator fund in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Board and approved by the Secretary of State for purposes conducive to the improvement of breeds of horses or the sport of horse racing.
The Betting Control Board are taking out of that fund certain sums of money in order to pay commission to people far away from the racecourses on which the totalisator is operating on bets invested in the totalisators on the racecourses. In answer to a question put by me the other day, the Home Secretary said:
I understand that the Board is paying a commission to certain firms engaged in the betting business on bets placed by them on the course with the Board's totalisator, and it is advised that such payment is in order. I do not propose to introduce legislation on the subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1930; col. 2343, Vol. 237.]
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider if the powers conferred upon him, under the Act which we have passed for the control and the use of the fund, will enable him to prevent this course being followed. The Home Secretary is in agreement with me. He said in answer to another question of mine:
I do not approve the course that has been taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1930; col. 1440, Vol. 237.]
I am asking him to say whether he cannot take action to stop the course that has been taken.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet was good enough to see me on this question before the session began to-day, and I pointed out to him that I did not know whether the Home Secretary had any power to do what the hon. Member desires him to do. I imagine these powers to be conferred on the Betting Control Board.

Sir B. PETO: That is the point which I am wanting the Home Secretary to tell us when he comes to reply.

The CHAIRMAN: But I am anxious to know now. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): The best advice and information which I can get has led me to the conclusion that I have not the power to intervene in the way suggested by the hon. Member.

The CHAIRMAN: If that be so, it is not in order to raise the question now.

Sir B. PETO: If the Home Secretary so interprets it, I shall be out of order in raising the question. If his legal advisers are right, and other legal advisers outside the House, who are not Law Officers of the Crown, are wrong, then the matter must drop so far as this Debate is concerned. I think that I should be in order in pointing out to the Home Secretary that he has certain powers to approve or disapprove the way that that fund is used. I have quoted the words in the Act, which says that it is to be subject to the approval of the Home Secretary; I have also shown that it is admitted that this fund is being used in order to pay commission to extend the operations of the totalisator all over the country through limited companies, bookmakers and others, in contradiction to the assurance that the House received on the Second Reading of the Act.

The CHAIRMAN: I must assume that the Home Secretary has been rightly advised that he has no power. We cannot, therefore, pursue the matter further at this stage.

Sir B. PETO: I will not presume to contravene your Ruling, and I will not therefore detain the Committee further.

Mr. SANDERS: I would not have intervened were it not for certain remarks made by the opener of the Debate in the very lengthy and varied speech which he made on an important aspect of the Home Secretary's duties. I thought that it was well that someone on this side should say a word in support of the policy which has been adopted by the Home Secretary in regard to the trivial matters with very revolutionary names which were brought up by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). I contend that the Home Secretary, in taking the line that he has
done, has adopted a policy which the biggest of his predecessors would have cordially approved. No one in this country who is in a position of responsibility tries in ordinary times such as those in which we are now living—I mean times of peace and not of war—to encroach upon the rights of ordinary men and women, even when they cannot express themselves very well or very politely, to print and publish things provided that the result of them is not destructive of law and order.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich remarked that a certain magistrate said in a court that certain pamphlets or leaflets which were connected with a prosecution for disorder, were very objectionable, and, apparently because the magistrate thought that these documents were very objectionable, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the printers and publishers ought to be prosecuted. I have read many statements of many magistrates, for whom I have the utmost respect, but I suggest that because a magistrate or anybody else thinks that a leaflet or a pamphlet is objectionable, that is no reason why the printers or the publishers ought to be prosecuted by the Home Secretary. I am aware that when the late Government were in office, the paper referred to, which is now a daily paper, was a weekly paper. There is no difference whatever between the weekly edition which used to come out when the late Government were in office, and the present daily paper, except that the daily paper is somewhat milder.
I used to study the weekly edition because a considerable portion of its contents were devoted to very libellous attacks upon myself while I was a candidate for my constituency, but, although to me and to other people these statements were very objectionable, I should not for a moment suggest to the Home Secretary that he should lower his office and give dignity to the paper by prosecuting. What is the result of treating a paper of that kind with the contempt it deserves? It may interest the Home Secretary and the Committee that in a recent edition of that daily organ, it was stated that the district in England which formerly returned a Communist to this House, and where the Communist secured 6,000 votes at the General Election,
namely, North Battersea, the least circulation of the paper had been obtained, there was the least sign of any activity for its support, and the condition of my constituency from the Communist point of view was absolutely disgraceful.
What would have happened if the late Home Secretary, besides having raided Arcos, had decided to prosecute this poor little sheet? He would have advertised the Communist movement and made martyrs of certain rather futile and stupid people, and he would have possibly given to the Communist movement of this country, which is a negligible movement, and one that can hardly be seen unless one applies a political microscope to it, the importance which it has obtained in Germany and France because the French and German Governments have adopted the contrary line to that adopted by the British Government. They have attacked, raided and suppressed the publications of the Communist movement, with the result that there is a powerful Communist body in both these countries capable of creating a large amount of dangerous disorder in the community, whereas in our country, by treating the movement in the traditional British way of allowing it to have free speech—

Mr. GRACE: You turned them out of the Trade Union Congress.

Mr. SANDERS: But we have not turned them out of the country. The Conservative party could turn them out of their organisation if it contained some supporters of the Communist movement. They would have the right to do it, for there is a great deal of difference between a voluntary organisation like the Trade Union Congress saying that the Communist shall not belong to it, and the State saying, "We are not going to allow you to print any documents because they happen to be considered objectionable by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich." When I hear speeches of the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to these poor creatures, whom I have met in my own constituency, and the importance that hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to attach to them and to what they say, I am always reminded of two incidents in my unimportant career. I was in Germany as a student at the time when
the German Government were adopting a line very similar to that which the right hon. Member for West Woolwich would like the Home Secretary to adopt. I was warned that if I was not careful in what I said about the Kaiser, the servants in my pension would report to the police, and at their word I might be placed in prison for at least 12 months.
I came back to England, and in my street one night, a very bibulous gentleman, in the presence of a policeman, went into the middle of the road, and shouted at the top of his voice the most seditious and disrespectiful remarks about the reigning Sovereign. The policeman went up to him and said, "My good man, if you are not a little more quiet, I shall have to take you to the police station for being disorderly. You had better go home." That is the correct way of dealing with the Communist movement; just pat it gently on the shoulder, and tell it that, as far as we are concerned in this country, we do not attach any importance to it, and that wherever the money is coming from, it is being wasted by a number of incompetent and futile people, who know no more about revolution, in fact not so much about revolution, as certain hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side who, just before the War, were attempting revolutionary proceedings in Ireland. That is the way to deal with this negligible body. My respect for the Conservative party and for the bravery of the average Conservative who sits in the House is Only maintained by the belief which I have that all this agitation about a few hundred incompetent, futile people is vamped up for purely political purposes.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: The expenditure of the Home Office seems to be going up in almost every detail. I notice that last year there was a decrease of £2,805 for the Home Office Vote, as compared with the year before, whereas this year there is an increase of £31,038 over last year. Last year, there was a staff decrease of three, and this year there is a staff increase of 11. If you turn to the inspection of factories you find that last year the staff was not increased at all, but this year there is an increase of 44 over the numbers of last year. Again, in regard to the inspection of explosives, there was a small increase
last year over the previous year and a bigger increase this year over last year. If you turn to the Aliens Restriction Act, you find that the staff decreased by one last year over the previous year, but this year there was an increase of five over last year. If you take the totals, you find that last year there was an increase of £2,776 over the previous year, and this year an increase of £31,089. In regard to the staff, there was a decrease last year of four and this year an increase of 60. I am not prepared to say that any of these increases are unnecessary, because I do not know sufficient about the need. It may be that each of them is necessary, but it is quite obvious that there is a general tendency to increase expenditure, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will most carefully scrutinise the expenditure and help to save money where he can. It is only by cutting down expenditure that you can hope eventually to case the burden of taxation.
Now I would like to come to a completely uncontroversial question, the want of uniformity in the practice of Magistrates in dealing with young offenders. I am sure the whole Committee must agree that the less young delinquents are sent to prison and the more they are sent to institutions, the better it is for them. Can the right hon. Gentleman possibly do more to bring to the notice of the Magistrates the powers which they have to send these young offenders to Borstal institutions instead of to prison? The hon. and learned Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Morris) raised the question of the records of convictions and fines, but he did not deal with this particular matter. It too often happens that the young offenders are not sent to Borstal institutions until after they have served one or more short sentences of imprisonment. Necessarily this means that, when they do reach the Borstal institution, the Borstal authorities find it very much harder to reclaim them. Let me give one or two illustrations of what has happened—I will not say recently but in the last few years. A lad not quite 19 had three consecutive sentences of two months' imprisonment. Three months after his release he got another two months' imprisonment. A lad of 18 had one month's imprisonment for larceny, then three months' imprisonment,
then one month's imprisonment. Immediately after his release another two months' imprisonment was given to him for loitering. Five months later he had another three months and two months after his release he had another two months' imprisonment when he was only just over 19 years of age. I will take offenders of tenderer age, the case of a lad of 16 who got one month's imprisonment for assault—

Mr. KNIGHT: The first offence?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am afraid I could not tell you that. A lad of 16 got three months' imprisonment for theft. Four months later, when still under 17, he had another three months' imprisonment. It would be infinitely better if these lads, instead of getting these short sentences of imprisonment, were sent straight away to Borstal institutions. Some Magistrates think that the present arrangements for the classification and treatment of persons under 21 have diminished the objection to giving these short sentences of imprisonment. I do not think it is the case. Persons under 21 who have sentences of three months and over are, it is true, gathered together in certain prisons called collecting centres and that is done because far better arrangements can be made for them as young persons when they are all collected together, but it, does not in the least mean that they are getting away from prison conditions, and the conditions prevailing at the prisons are quite different from the conditions prevailing at the Borstal institutions. In the first place, at the Borstal institutions all the inmates are young and the whole of the administration is directed to training these young people. In a prison these young offenders form only a portion of the whole population, and, therefore, the whole administration has to be directed so as to suit a population of very mixed ages.
Again, in the Borstal institution there are a very large number of occupations, and classes can be provided for the various kinds of young people they have to deal with. In a prison it is quite impossible to provide this diversity of training and employment. In Borstal institutions, where inmates are serving long sentences, courses of training are progressive;
in prisons, where sentences are short, courses of training cannot possibly be consecutive or progressive. In Borstal institutions you have very extensive premises where open-air exercises and physical training can take place; naturally in prison those opportunities are very much restricted. Finally, in prison there is always the danger of contamination of these young offenders by the older prisoners. Great efforts are made to segregate them to a certain extent, but it is impossible in a prison to separate completely the young offenders from the older people. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to remind magistrates of their powers in this respect.
The only other point that I want to deal with is the question of mental defectives. There is a practice in some courts of convicting cases of doubtful sanity and sending them to prison for observation. The practice of these courts varies to a large extent. This is where the right hon. Gentleman can help a great deal by calling the attention of magistrates to their powers under various Acts. In one district a very low grade imbecile was sent to prison for stealing coal. In other courts cases of mental deficiency are dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Act and these persons are not sent to prison as convicted prisoners. To my mind it is very undesirable indeed to mix the mentally defective in prisons with those who are mentally normal. The Governor and the medical officer of one large prison gave the case of 12 women whose convictions for drunkenness ranged from 11 to 15 each during the year, and the number of days they spent in prison were from 201 to 318 days apiece.
It is obvious that these short sentences of imprisonment did absolutely no good at all, and that those poor people ought to have been sent to an institution. I have no doubt that a good many could have been sent to an inebriate home under one of the earlier Acts of Parliament. The Secretary of State sometimes on his own authority and initiative removes cases of that kind to institutions. I am sorry to say that there is often a great delay in getting these people admitted. Very often accommodation cannot be found, and these people remain in prison sometimes for many months. In some cases they remain in prison until
their sentences expire and they never get into a home at all. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has got power at the moment to increase this accommodation but, if he could use his influence to do so, I am sure it would go a long way towards solving that particular problem. That is the only point I wish to raise before the right hon. Gentleman speaks.

Mr. CLYNES: I do not offer any objection whatever either to the terms or the tone of any of the speeches which we have heard in this Debate. I particularly welcome the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and assure him that I share with him some concern as to the human side of the subjects upon which he has touched. I cannot at the moment say what my powers may be in dealing with inebriates and mental defectives, but he can depend upon it that I will give sympathetic consideration to what he has said and will see whether it is possible to do anything further. He made some criticism of the increase of the cost of working and managing the Home Office. I am afraid that the increase in an institution like the Home Office is inevitable. If you are to meet public demands and cover an increasing desire for public safety under the innumerable heads relating to Home Office work you will have to meet the cost. I think it is agreed that the necessary cost of that kind is more in the nature of an investment giving a good public return than expenditure of an ordinary character.
The right hon. Gentleman touched on a matter which I have often referred to myself in public speeches and at gatherings of magistrates, probation officers, and others interested in police and kindred questions. The view of the Home Office is that the committal to prison of persons under 21 should be avoided if any alternative method of dealing with them can reasonably be adopted. A certain number of young persons are still sent to prison in default of payment of fines. In 1927 there were 581, and in 1928, 454. There is a provision under the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act, 1914, that, when a young offender is allowed time for payment, the Court may place him under the supervision of some person who may be appointed by the Court until the sum adjudged to be paid is paid. A circular
sent out some time ago urged that more use should be made of this provision. In many cases the Courts and the police do their best by delaying the commital warrants and by warning the defaulters to secure payment and avoid committal to prison.
A circular was sent out some time ago urging that in suitable cases conditions should be attached to probation orders requiring young offenders to live in hostels and places where they could go out to get work, or in homes or places where training and employment as well as accommodation are provided for young people. In more serious offences, where probation is undesirable in the public interest, and detention is necessary, the circular urged that Borstal treatment was the proper thing. Prison conditions do not permit of an adequate system of training for young people; and although young prisoners are as far as possible kept apart from others, it is impossible to secure complete isolation and for them never to come in sight of or in contact with older offenders. Those who are acquainted with the changes in prison life in recent years will agree that a very considerable advance has been made I think that advance will continue, no matter which party may be in office, and that efforts will be made to bring people, no matter of what age, out of prison better than they were when they went in. Much depends on the human element and the degree of education, guidance and instruction that can be given to those who, unhappily, are in prison. Reference was made to the position of probation officers. At the Home Office we are responsible for probation officers in the London area. Their pay has been increased and pensions have been established for them, and they are brought into closer contact with the different institutions with which they are concerned in regard to their duties than was formerly the case.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) raised, perhaps, the most controversial of any of the questions discussed this afternoon. I dare say the Communists will thank him for the wide advertisement which he has given to their literature and their efforts. I did not think he was so pro-Communist as he has turned out to be according to his speech this afternoon. He cited, first of all, two cases at Chelsea and Hounslow. In both cases the Secretary
of State for War, on being consulted, advised that the terms of the leaflets were not such as to justify the military authorities in suggesting that proceedings should be taken for sedition. I know I have some responsibility in these matters, but at the Home Office we are not in any sense a prosecuting authority, and it is proper for us to take counsel, say, with the War Office when a leaflet is issued to soldiers or when some effort is made by an individual to undermine the loyalty of the Army. So far as I have acted in these matters, I have acted on the best legal and official advice which I could obtain from the appropriate quarter. The persons who were prosecuted were not prosecuted for what the leaflets contained, but for misbehaviour in their distribution and for the disorder which they caused. An arrest might equally well have been necessary, say, in the case of some importunate street hawker who persisted in trying to sell an Arsenal buttonhole to the supporters of the other team on the occasion of the Cup Final. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no!"] Oh, yes. I repeat that these persons were not prosecuted because of the terms or character of the leaflet, but for disorder. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that in one instance the magistrate read parts of the leaflets in court and made comments upon them and actually went to the length of saying that these leaflets were very objectionable. They may well be very objectionable. To my mind, many of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman are very objectionable, but I would not on that account take any action to bring him into a Court of law.

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the case where the magistrate ordered the leaflets to be destroyed. He is hardly dealing with the cases seriously.

Mr. CLYNES: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was so intensely solemn and serious as, perhaps, he appeared to be in handling these cases. I shall, before I finish, make some reference to each one of them. But I say that the public interest has not been endangered by the printing or circulating of the leaflets in question. To that I will add that Communist literature is less
abundant now than it was before the Labour party came into office. I might well ask the right hon. Gentleman why proceedings were not taken against the Communists by the late Government. The only difference, indeed, in the literature is that in their leaflets to-day there is a little more vituperation, a little more unrestrained condemnation of the Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know where they got all the money for this kind of work. So do I! It would be a matter of interest if we did know. But what action did the late Government take to find out where they got the money for the printing and the distribution of this literature? In such cases as these it is always a matter for consideration whether, in the public interest, it would be better to prosecute or to ignore the offence. You can do a great deal of good to an offender by giving him wide advertisement, and in these cases it was desirable not to give the Communists and their sympathisers the valuable opportunity of airing their views which a prosecution would have afforded them.
At Aldershot there were no arrests on either occasion. Near Chelsea Barracks two men and a woman were arrested on the 15th March and charged with insulting behaviour. They were convicted at Westminster Police Court on the 17th March and each was fined £2. These three prisoners were distributing to soldiers leaving the barracks copies of a Communist leaflet calling upon them to protest against compulsory church parades and to defend Soviet Russia, and so on. These particular leaflets were not printed, but multigraphed, and bore no direct indication of their origin. At Hounslow on the 12th April the circumstances were similar. Two men were arrested. The leaflets were not the same as those distributed on the 15th March, but they were similar in tone. They were addressed to the workers in the Army, and called upon soldiers to form committees for the abolition of compulsory church parades. The two men were convicted at the Brentford Petty Sessions on the 14th April on a charge of insulting behaviour whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. One was fined £2 and £3 3s. costs. and the other was fined £1
I have been asked to state what is my policy in relation to the matter. It
is to deal with each case on its merits, and, if I may say so, apply as much common sense as I can hope to do as to what action should be taken, according to the degree of the offence. It is impossible to announce beforehand what one will do in any hypothetical case, but I think the House may be assured that we shall have regard to the interests of the State and, incidentally, to the rights of individuals freely to hold opinions which are not in themselves offensive. It is none of our business to try to make new offences while we are in office.
I have been asked to make some statement on the question of deporting Russians. It is not a new question, nor does it arise solely in connection with the Soviet Government, for the persistence of the habit of classing all persons from the former Russian Empire as "Russian" has tended to emphasise the part played by the Soviet Government. For a year or so after the War it was impossible to dump all "Russians" into Russia without too great a regard to their actual place of origin, and ever since Russia and the Baltic States settled down to a fairly stable condition, and enacted nationality and immigration laws, the difficulty of deporting reputed Russians has been acute. The difficulty arises from the fact that the nationalisation laws of the country concerned do not recognise as nationals persons not resident in the country at a prescribed date, unless they have applied for citizenship within a certain period, and obtained it. This period has, of course, long since expired. Many, if not the majority, of the persons concerned have been long absent from their country of origin and have lost all connection with it, and have not troubled to apply for citizenship. Consequently, there are a large number of persons of former Russian nationality who are now without a country, are State-less. Some come from what is now Soviet Russia, but more come from the various concession States on the boundary, and we have met with at least as many refusals of recognition from Lithuania and Latvia and other places as from Soviet Russia.
As regards persons recommended for deportation who may be Soviet citizens, the renewal of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government has afforded a fresh opportunity of considering the possibility of their removal from this
country. A careful examination has been made of all cases outstanding since 1924. The Foreign Office have been asked to make application to the Soviet Government for facilities for the deportation of three persons whose deportation in existing circumstances appears to be desirable, and whose claim to Soviet citizenship appears to be worth further investigation. In all cases when deportation has not been possible after the expiration of an alien's sentence it has been the practice to authorise his release upon special restrictions designed to secure, as far as possible, that the offence shall not be repeated.
Now I come to the dismissal of the Russian employés and a statement of the position of the Government regarding them. The dismissed employés declined to return to the Soviet Republic, and in most cases they made formal application to the Secretary of State to be allowed to remain in this country. Careful inquiry has been made regarding the 27 persons mentioned in the list furnished by the Soviet Embassy, with special reference to the 11 dismissed in 1929 and this year. As regards those dismissed before that date, a decision has already been taken, in most cases, not to interfere with their continued residence in this country, and where necessary the condition attached to their landing has been cancelled. Two had left in 1927 and one had disappeared. As regards the 11 dismissed during 1929, an intimation has already been conveyed to five that no objection will be raised to their continued presence in this country. The other six cases are still under consideration. In reply to a question on 1st May, I said that, with one possible exception, none of these Soviet citizens is on the British labour market, the majority of them being in business on their own account.
My powers are adequate for dealing with this type of case which is clearly distinguishable from the cases of disputed or doubtful nationality that have given so much trouble. Each case must be considered on its merits, and, so far, I have not come across any case where it seemed desirable in the interests of this country that the alien should be required to leave. If and when such a case should arise in which, on the one hand, the interests of this country would require
the alien's departure, and on the other hand public sentiment would recoil from the thought of exposing the alien to the risk of the drastic treatment contemplated by the Soviet decree of 21st November, 1928, the question of making representation to the Soviet Government would arise. That would be a matter of policy for the Government as a whole, and I cannot deal with what is at present a hypothetical case.
Another case which has been raised is that of Isidor Dreazen, who has been passing under the name of Mills in this country. He is a naturalised American, born at Wilno, Poland, on 3rd August, 1893. This man arrived in this country on 29th January this year, having travelled from Ostend to Dover with an American passport issued on 12th June, 1929. He stated to the immigration officer that he was on a three weeks' visit and did not intend to do any business in this country, and consequently he was granted leave to land. On 25th April he was arrested, following certain police inquiries at the headquarters of the Communist party in Manchester, and charged with failing to register himself as an alien within the prescribed period of two months. On 1st May he was convicted, sentenced to one month's imprisonment, and recommended for deportation. The question of his deportation remains to be decided and will be considered in due course. I think that in this case the police are to be commended for the promptness of their action and for the course they have taken.

Sir K. WOOD: Is this man a member of the executive committee of the Communist International?

Mr. CLYNES: Upon that point I have no information. Several hon. Members have raised the question of inquests and coroners' courts. The Debate to-day has not convinced me that there is any widespread demand for a far-reaching overhauling of the common law on this question. There was a very comprehensive inquiry by a committee in 1910, and another one in 1926, when there was a considerable change in the law. My view is that it is rather too early to review this matter, and our experience has not been sufficient to justify us in taking any further steps in this direction. It
is true that there has been three or four cases which have given rise to some criticism and to some uneasiness, but the instances which have given rise to criticisms are extremely few in comparison with the total number of inquests which have been held. I can only state the law as it has been stated to me. The common law is now embodied in Section 4 (3) of the Coroners Act, 1887, and it is under this provision that the coroners are required to pursue their inquiries up to the point of enabling the jury to find the persons, if any, who have been guilty of murder or manslaughter. Our courts have always recognised the imperative need in this country of some method of investigating murders that has not the defects to English minds of Continental methods of interrogations in private. The function of a coroner is not to try the question or the guilt or innocence of any person. It is his duty simply to push the investigation far enough to enable the jury to come to a finding not of guilt or innocence, but whether there is a prima facie case against a person who should be put on his trial.
The rights and liberties of the murdered person should, after all, be borne in mind. When an outrage upon the rights and liberties of the subject is committed to the extent of murder or manslaughter, the law insists that every effort should be made to discover the culprit, even at the risk of some inconvenience to some other subjects who may be unfortunate enough to be suspect. For these reasons the safeguards which hedge round the proceedings in a court of trial do not apply in the case of proceedings before a coroner, but the absence of these safeguards is intentional, and if the proceedings in a coroner's court were hedged round with the same restrictions as apply in a court of trial, the usefulness of a coroner's inquisition would be considerably impaired. After listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul), I am convinced that there is considerable force in his argument, and I do not close my mind to the case which has been submitted in the course of this discussion. The hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft also raised the question of the censorship of films.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it true that the Reading inquest was reopened at the request of Scotland Yard?

Mr. CLYNES: During the remainder of the Debate I will endeavour to give that information. With regard to the question of films, there may be differences of opinion as to what is good for the younger people amongst those who deplore the intervention of the censorship. I would like to point out that the Board of Censors is an independent body. The next body to intervene and to exercise the right of permits in regard to films is the local authority, and that body acts upon the certificate of the Board of Film Censors. It is a fact that the local authority can act independently of the Board of Censors, and I think it has done so in a few instances.

Miss WILKINSON: The Home Secretary has just stated that the Board of Censors is an independent body. Is it not a fact that the members of the Board of Censors are attached to the trade and that the salaries and expenses of that Board are paid by the trade? In those circumstances, how can it be said that they are an independent body?

Mr. CLYNES: That raises the question of what is meant by "independent." I mean that they are independent of any authority which I know, and it is the Board which the law permits. I will leave this subject by saying that I do not think anyone would seriously claim that the authority now exercised by local councils and local governing bodies should be taken from them, or that any power of that kind should be placed in the hands of others.
On the subject of aliens, I can assure my hon. Friend that the checking and supervision of the incoming of aliens into this country is completely effective. It must be realised that when nearly half a million people come into this country from abroad every year, it is not surprising that a few of them manage to get through, in spite of the restrictions of a competent board of officials. The conditions in this country are very different, economically and industrially, from what they were before the War, and no one in the present conditions of unemployment and economic stress would dream of giving a free access to aliens to come in just as they pleased.
Another aspect of this question was raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who asked, quite reasonably, that something should be done in the case of many poor aliens who have been here for a quarter of a century and have not yet been naturalised. The hon. Member for Gorbals pointed out that it is difficult for these poor aliens to find the fee, and the other incidental costs necessary for naturalisation. I have discussed this matter with the proper authorities, and the conclusion I have reached is that it would be a fair thing to make some reasonable provision to meet these hard cases in respect of the legal fee and other costs, and to arrange for a different tribunal, and so organise the system as to make it unnecessary for these poor aliens to go to a solicitor to receive legal aid for which they have to pay. At the same time, I submit to the Committee that the acquirement of the privilege of British nationality is worth something, and it should not be treated as something which belong to everybody, and, consequently, it is necessary for us to exercise the greatest care in regard to these matters. We should do that if only for the reason that the conduct of this elaborate machinery in connection with aliens is a costly business, and those who are to take advantage of it and gain from its working should be willing to pay something in exchange for the advantage that it gives to them. There is much more under this head that I might say, but I know that other Members are anxious to raise new topics, which will be dealt with later by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
I was asked about an increase in the number of factory inspectors. The general inspection staff attached to the inspection divisions and the districts is to be raised from 180 to 243, the number of superintending inspectors' divisions from 10 to 11, and the number of inspection districts from 83 to 96. An additional division will be formed in the south-east of England, where there has been in recent years a great development of industry, so that, so far as we have the means and opportunity, we are increasing our power of supervision over industries in these new areas.
I should like to say a word on a point which has become of very real social interest in two or three centers, as, for instance, Hull and South Shields. It is
in reference to coloured seamen, and the rather serious troubles which have been associated with incidents of quite recent date. These coloured seamen are of two kinds, British subjects and aliens. The British subjects are mainly Indians or lascars. The general question of the employment of coloured seamen is one for the Board of Trade, who have for some time been giving consideration to the problems involved. As regards alien coloured seamen, the Home Office has certain powers under the Aliens Restriction Act, and through emigration officers and the police, all practicable steps are taken to prevent any unauthorised addition to the alien coloured seamen population. Much of the trouble arose from the activities of certain coloured boarding house keepers, who make a profit out of the engagement of these men, in some cases even supplying them with forged papers. The recent conviction and recommendation for deportation of one of the most active of these boarding house keepers will, I hope, be of considerable assistance in curtailing this illegal traffic. I would like to express the opinion that, in taking full advantage of our powers, we should use the power to deal with coloured British subjects, and that, as regards both classes of seamen, the most effective remedy in my judgment would be for British shipowners to give a preference to the employment of British over coloured seamen wherever they can possibly do so.
I had to inform the House on a recent occasion of a development in connection with the police forces of our country, to which at the moment I cannot refer, but, to reassure those hon. Members who have just touched on the subject, and who have been interrupted, very properly, by the Chairman, I would say that a reply will be given later in the course of our discussion to the points which I am certain they wanted to raise. I think, without belittling the importance of the questions which will be raised later, that I have dealt with the main subjects in which hon. Members are interested.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: Last year, when we were discussing these Votes, the Home Secretary was asked whether he would consider anything in regard to the foundation of observation centres. There
is no specific Vote down on that subject, and, therefore, I take it that I shall be in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman what are his intentions and views on the subject. As the Committee will realise, observation centres are supposed to be homes or places where persons who are charged, and especially young persons, can be placed for a certain time before they are actually adjudicated upon, in order to see what is the reason of their delinquency. These observation centres are extremely important. The case is like that of a doctor. It is no use going to a doctor and saying that a man has a headache, and the doctor saying, "Oh, it is headache, is it? He must have headache medicine," and giving him a pill or some sort of medicine just for headache. The doctor does not do that; he puts the patient under observation, sees what is the matter with him, and treats him accordingly. It has been suggested on former occasions that it would be a wise thing, in the interests of reforming, and not penalising, people who are charged, to take this matter seriously in hand. The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary will no doubt understand what I am trying to convey, even if I do not express it very well, and I hope very much that they will tell us what they have in mind in regard to this matter.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I should like to touch upon a subject to which reference has already been made in the House. Four or five years ago, the Home Office appointed a Departmental Committee to consider the treatment of young offenders, and that Committee issued its Report in March, 1927. The Report contained many recommendations regarding the treatment of children who break the law. Some of the suggestions could only be carried out by legislation, and, therefore, I do not touch upon them now, but there were other matters which could be carried out at once by the Home Office, and it is on these that I propose now to speak. The Report was a most admirable one, imbued with the modern humane spirit. It said that the welfare of the child or young person should be the primary object of the juvenile court. We have got rid of the old idea that a person who broke the law was a person against whom the State ought to
take revenge, and we now treat the child offender, especially, as a mental invalid, as a wrong-doer who has to be converted into an asset to the State. Retribution has given place to reformation, and that spirit ran through this very admirable Report.
The most important feature of the whole system of Juvenile Courts and probation is the probation officer. That he should be thoroughly competent and capable is essential if the probation system is to work well. One of the recommendations of the Report was that the whole probation system throughout the country should be supervised by the Home Office, and, therefore, I am not I think doing wrong if I press upon the Home Office the importance of securing for the work of probation the very beat men that can be obtained. I am not satisfied with the way in which probation officers are secured at the present time. When probation was first established, the Police Courts utilised very largely the services of the Police Court missionaries and the representatives of the Church of England Temperance Society. They were, I think, in every case quite worthy and excellent men. They have done good service in the past, and the Courts still largely resort to them for carrying on the work of probation, but I think the time has come for the establishment of a thoroughly modern and up-to-date system. One result of appointing officials of Church of England associations is practically to institute a sectarian test in the case of a large number of those who become probation officers, and certainly we on this side of the House think that sectarian tests ought to belong to the past.
It is very important, also, that the justices should be thoroughly qualified for their work, though a great many of them are not at the present time. I know, of course, that the appointment of justices does not rest with the Home Office, but with the Lord Chancellor, but the Home Office can do a great deal to mitigate the unfortunate results that follow from having incompetent justices. We want better qualified justices, we want younger justices, we want more women justices, and, above all, we want to banish from the appointment of justices anything in the nature of reward for political services. Mr. H. G. Wells
once described the office of justice of the peace as "the knighthood of the underling," and it has been so to a very large extent in the past. We want our justices to be imbued with the modem spirit, to be free from the old idea that if you spared the rod you spoilt the child, and rubbish of that kind. I appeal to the Home Office to secure as far as they can—they can do a great deal without legislation—that in the Police Courts modern methods shall be adopted, and that the child shall be treated, not as a wrongdoer, but rather as a mental invalid to be restored to health.
The Departmental Committee made various recommendations, which I should like to press upon the hon. Gentleman who is at the moment representing the Home Office. I would ask him if he is satisfied that these recommendations are being carried out. The Committee recommended that, in the case of justices dealing with children, there should be a small panel of men and women justices set apart to deal with juvenile courts; that the number sitting was often too large, and should normally be limited to three; that there should be a greater sharing of common experience by Magistrates of juvenile courts; and that they should make themselves acquainted with some of the institutions to which they send children. It would be very interesting to know how many Magistrates do that. I venture to say that very few now obey that injunction. Then it was recommended that the whole procedure of juvenile courts should be remodelled on simpler lines, and that the forms should be made simpler. Is that being done? Other recommendations were that the terms "conviction" and "sentence" should not be used in the juvenile court; that proceedings in the juvenile court should be as private and informal as possible, care being taken to limit the number of persons present; and that publication of the name, address, school, photograph, or anything likely to lead to identification of the young offender should be prohibited. I should very much like to know how far these excellent injunctions are being adopted by Magistrates throughout the country.
8.0 p.m.
One result of getting better and more efficient probation officers and justices would be a decline of the habit, which I
am glad to say is already declining, of refraining, when a boy gets into trouble, from bringing him before the Court, because of the harm it might do. A boy goes to the local baker as an errand boy. He steals money, and the baker discovers it, but says, "Well, I do not want to spoil the boy's career," and quietly gets rid of him. He goes to the local grocer and repeats the process, emboldened by his success at the baker's. Again the grocer may say, "I know that the boy's parents are very decent people," and he, too, quietly gets rid of him. The boy goes to the butcher, who is rather more hard-hearted, and brings him up at the police court. There he appears as a first offender, and is dealt with as a first offender, but he is really a confirmed wrong-doer. I hope that Members of the House will realise that the truest kindness to such a boy is not to overlook his offence, and allow him to continue his wrongdoing, but at once to bring him before the Court. The report, I am sorry to say, does not entirely condemn whipping. If there is one thing to which, as one who has taken an interest in child offenders for many years, I am intensely opposed, it is whipping. I had the opportunity a year or two ago of addressing the National Association of Probation Officers, and on my suggestion they unanimously passed a Resolution that whipping should be abolished. They said that it hampered their work and that a boy who had been whipped came before them with a feeling of resentment so that the probation officer did not get a fair chance. A practice against which I want to protest is that of whipping boys and putting them on probation at the same time. Some magistrates are so firm on whipping a boy that if he is charged with stealing a box of chocolates and 5s. they put him on probation for the box of chocolates and have him whipped for the 5s. The whole point of probation is that a boy is not to be formally convicted, and if he is to be thrashed he must be convicted.
I am sure that all the lawyers in the House will bear me out that the practice is essentially illegal, and I press the Home Office to deal with the matter. The Departmental Report says that where the
need arises the Home Office should procure the establishment of local committees to organise and co-ordinate the work of after-care. Such committees should be fully representative of all the interests concerned, for example, local education authorities, vocation committees, voluntary societies and so forth. That is very important work. Often the most critical time in the career of one who has broken the law is the time when the probation officer ceases to exercise any care over him. The boy suddenly finds he has got his feet, and that is the time above all others when the after-care should come into operation and he should be helped to fight the battle of life. I offer these criticisms in no sense of hostility to the Home Office. I recognise that the present Home Secretary and his able assistant, the Parliamentary Secretary, are deeply imbued with what I call the modern spirit and recognise that children who offend against the law have to be treated not as wrongdoers but as children to be restored to the paths of rectitude and to become assets rather than liabilities to the State.

Viscount WOLMER: I shall not detain the Committee long, and would not have risen at all if it had not been for the remarks which the Home Secretary made on a matter which very much affects the constituency I represent, that is, the dissemination by the Communist party of incitements to the troops stationed at Aldershot and other garrison towns. I should like to reinforce very strongly what the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) said in that connection. It seems to me to be petty on the part of the Government to prosecute the poor dupes who are made to carry this literature through the camps and to leave untouched the organisations behind them who are paying them, providing the literature and are the schemers of the whole movement. The Government have prosecuted a few of these miserable men, but they have done nothing against the printing presses and the organisation that is pouring out this stuff.
I was astonished to hear the Home Secretary say that in his opinion, as I gather, and certainly in the opinion of the Secretary of State for War, the leaflets which have been circulated are not of such a character that he would feel justified in taking action against
the printers. He even went so far as to compare the appeals with appeals to join some football team and suggested that these men who go about with literature in the camps were merely prosecuted on account of the disturbance they made. I have been supplied with a specimen of the literature that was handed to the soldiers in the Aldershot camp only a few days ago, and I want to read to the Committee very shortly just a few passages to show the nature of this stuff that is being so freely printed in the country. This is an appeal
To the Workers in the Army, Navy and Air Forces.
To-day the police are brutally used to stifle the unemployed and, as our struggle grows so will stronger measures be used. To-morrow you may be called upon to attack us.… This Government composed of men who climbed to power on the backs of the workers, cannot even find money to relieve the misery of the victims of its rationalisation policy; yet in the midst of its so-called Naval Disarmament Conference it has decided to spend this year £110,000,000 on preparations for future wars and, as soon as the conference is over, it will vote further millions for new naval destruction. Thus does it show its capitalist character. We unemployed are marching to expose its shameful work and to end our misery and degradation. We are not prepared meekly to accept starvation because a capitalist Government, calling itself Labour, is in office. It is to your interest to help us in our fight against starvation, to contribute to our fund, to assist our meetings on the road and join us in demonstrations on 1st May for the unity of soldiers, sailors, airmen and workers in the common struggle against the Labour Government and its starvation methods against the unemployed, against the war preparations, against speeding up and low wages and for full work and waves for all workers.
That kind of exhortation, of course, would be quite unobjectionable if made to civilians, but the point about soldiers is that they are under discipline, and in their capacity as soldiers, whether they are officers or men, they are the servants of the Government and have no party politics. I am Member for Aldershot, but I have never held a political meeting in the camp or in the precincts of the camp. I have never asked permission to do so, and I do not expect that I should ever be allowed to do such a thing. The Army as such knows no politics and ought not to know any politics, and it is quite wrong that these organisations should be allowed to incite troops to take
sides in the grievances of the Communist party against His Majesty's Government.
I should like to tell the Committee that the soldiers intensely resent this literature being handed to them. They regard it as an insult, as an aspersion on their loyalty and steadfastness in that they should be suspected of being susceptible to such arguments as these, and therefore it appears to me to be altogether unworthy and contemptible that the Government ignore the printing presses and the printers that are printing literature of this description. The name of the printer is on this literature, and if the Government say that they have no powers to stop printing of this sort, it is about time they came to this House and asked for them. I am sure they would get them very easily indeed. To use their present powers on the miserable dupes who are made to carry this stuff round the camps and to leave untouched the men who are writing and printing it, is unworthy of the Government of a great country and also dangerous in so important a matter. We cannot, as lovers of liberty, and as politicians ignore the deliberate attempts which are being made to instil a spirit of indiscipline, a spirit of partisanship, a spirit of rebellion in the armed forces of the Crown and, although there is not the slightest danger of the officers and men paying any attention to this sort of thing, we owe it to ourselves and to our respect for the Forces to see that an end is put to it as soon as possible.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to associate myself with what has been said about the exhibition in Horseferry Road. In many ways it is extremely interesting to anybody who is interested in industry, but it requires better propaganda than it is receiving. Perhaps it requires better propaganda than any Government Department is capable of giving it, but if the Government are incapable of getting the people to visit it, I suggest they should get in touch with some advertising agency which knows how to interest people in this kind of thing and get large numbers to visit it instead of the sparse numbers who visit it at present.
I should like to support, too, what has been said about the treatment of juvenile offenders. It has been said that there
are a great many who ought not to be sent to prison at all, who owing to some mental kink or habit have committed some minor offence for which they ought not to be punished by being sent to prison, but should be treated in some way. It has been said that there is a certain type of young person, who goes in for burglary, who in another class of life would go in for big game hunting. I do not know whether there is anything in that. I do not suggest that burglary should be dealt with on lines of this kind, but there are a great many cases of youths and girls whose whole career and future life are ruined by being sent to prison, when they ought to go to a hospital for mental treatment. The Tavistock Square clinic is doing most excellent work in this way. It has very inadequate resources but a devoted staff and band of supporters, and I believe offenders of this kind are being sent there and suitably dealt with. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to say that the Government are in sympathy with dealing with cases on these lines, and are going to take some steps to extend the possibility of the treatment. At present it can only be done on a limited scale, and a number of people are having their lives ruined owing to lack of opportunity of treatment.
I should like to know how far the Government have gone in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee on factory inspection. It was signed on 8th May of last year, and there were 16 recommendations. I hope that steps are being taken to put it into operation in due course. In making his selection of suitable people as factory inspectors, I hope that the Home Secretary will not place entire reliance on academic distinction. You must have an entrance examination and you must have a certain standard, but it is also vital to have people as inspectors who have some practical knowledge of industry, and who are in the habit of dealing with technical, industrial problems. In that way you will get far better harmony in carrying out their duties, and far more efficient work will be performed. I do not think sufficient attention is paid to the matter at present. Let us have academic distinction by all means, but let that go
with practical industrial experience. I believe that there is a tendency amongst factory inspectors to pay far too much attention to factories that are well run, where things are done in the way of welfare, and where his attention is not nearly as much required as it is elsewhere. Smaller factories in the same neighbourhood, which may be of a lower standard, get neglected while the inspector is devoting his attention to well-organised places which do not require it in the same degree. I hope it will be suggested to them that they ought to give more of their time to the small, badly organised factories.
There has been a good deal of criticism of the Government order misting that in every department there must be first-aid boxes. I agree that, where no other arrangements are made, it is essential to insist on that, but where other arrangements are made, where you have central welfare institutions, it is far better to rely on that. If you rely on first-aid boxes posted in different departments, they get neglected, and they get dirty, and you do not get anything like the same attention to accidents when they occur as when you are dependent on a centralised department. I hope that factory inspectors will bear that in mind and not stick simply to the letter of the law, as they are far too much inclined to do sometimes.
I deplore the lack of information which seems to exist in the Home Office on many industrial matters. I have put a number of questions asking for information on industrial subjects, such as works councils, foremen's councils, works magazines and suggestion schemes, but either they have no information or it is of a very inadequate character. I do not know whether the Home Office consider it to be within their functions to give information of that kind, but if it is not, I hope that they are so reorganising the Home Office as to make it possible to supply it. If they cannot do that, or can only do it to a limited extent, I hope that they will instruct their inspectors to inform employers that there is a very excellent voluntary body, the Industrial Welfare Society, which has the Duke of York as President, and on the council a number of Members of the House of all parties, including Members of the Government and the Home Secretary himself. It has had a very wide
experience of industrial questions, and it has been able in the past to advise and help employers who want to have a high standard of welfare in their factories if they wanted information. That information is not available now, and if the Home Office cannot give it themselves, they might at least advise employers where they can get it in a very effective way from this society.
A great deal of rationalisation is going on in industry. I hope that the Government will do what they can to rationalise themselves—to rationalise the various Government Departments. The Home Office is dealing with only one small corner of the industrial field. I hope that they are taking care to see that their work is properly related to what is done by other Departments. The Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education are all doing work of a similar nature to some extent in industry, and they ought to be co-ordinated, either on a voluntary basis or by setting up a Ministry of Industry. It was a recommendation of that book which, I understand, lies at the bedside of most Members of the Cabinet for reading during wakeful hours, the Liberal Yellow Book, that there should be set up a Council of Industry. Until that is done—and I feel sure it will be some day—there will not be proper co-ordination between all these Departments connected with industry. Our problems to-day are economic. If we simply look at things from the point of view of the technical side, we are leaving out the human side, which is one of the most important. We are not going to make any proper progress in the restoration of prosperity until we get labour properly recognised as an essential factor in industry, as a partner, and I believe, by doing that on proper lines, we can do what is a vital and absolutely essential thing in restoring prosperity once more to a proper level in the land

Major MILNER: I desire to bring to the notice of the Committee an action of the Home Secretary which is of some special interest to those who are concerned with local authorities, and the various powers within their jurisdiction. The Leeds Corporation has undertaken a task which has not been undertaken by any municipality in the country for 100 years.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Member to raise that matter. It is the subject of a Bill before a Committee in another place, and I must rule him out of order.

Major MILNER: I desire to call attention to the action of the Home Secretary.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is obviously impossible to criticise the Home Secretary without giving reasons which would involve some discussion of the merits of the Bill—why it is being opposed or supported. My Ruling is clear. The Bill is now before a Committee in another place; it is sub judice and it would be improper to discuss it here. I must adhere to that ruling.

Major MILNER: May I put the matter in another way without mentioning the Bill at all? The Leeds Corporation have passed certain resolutions desiring certain powers. A public meeting has been held and no objection has been taken to the Leeds Corporation's desire for those powers, but when the request came before a Committee of this House the Home Secretary, through his representative, took exception—he being the only person who up to that moment had taken exception—to the application for those powers. The Committee decided against the Home Secretary.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All these matters are before the Committee which is now considering the Bill. It is a competent Committee of another House and will take all those facts into consideration. It is obviously improper to discuss matters on the Floor of this House which are being adjudicated upon in another place, and I must rule the hon. Member out of order.

Mr. HOPKIN: I wish to ask the Home Secretary what his policy is as regards the Workmen's Compensation Act. I notice under Vote 1, Section (E) "Fees and Expenses of Medical Referees"—fees and expenses paid to the medical practitioners appointed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Act—for the year 1930, £17,500, whereas in 1929 they were £18,000. I desire to ask the Home Secretary what his policy will be particularly as regards Order 975, which deals with the question of silicosis? It
is within the knowledge of the Committee that before a man can claim compensation under this Order he must have worked during 1929 or afterwards, and also that there must be in the rock upon which he had worked at least 50 per cent. free silica. Owing to the operation of these two conditions the Order as it stands now is an absolute fraud on the workers.
Taking the time first—1929—there are dozens and dozens of men in my constituency who have had to leave work two, three and four years ago. I have been told that a man may have been exposed to silica dust as far back as 20 years; that it may take even 20 years before that man becomes incapacitated. Taking the next condition—the condition of 50 per cent. free silica—as the matter stands now in the anthracite district we sent up two samples to be analysed. The first sample showed 22 per cent. and the second one showed 24 per cent. It is absolutely impossible for any man in the anthracite district to get compensation after he is incapacitated, or for his dependents to get compensation if he has died, because of the second condition of 50 per cent. of silica.
About a fortnight ago the Under-Secretary of State was good enough to promise that he would send an inspector to the anthracite district. Has this inspector been sent, and, if so, what is the likelihood of the Home Secretary being able to change this Order? I can give him, in addition to the examples which I have already given him, a few dozen more examples of men who are either incapacitated partially or totally and who do not at present receive a penny piece in compensation. I most respectfully suggest that we should drop these titles of "silicosis" and "anthracosis" and in their places substitute the term "fibrosis of the lungs," and let the doctors themselves find out as to what exactly is the cause of this fibrosis. At the present time, as my hon. Friend knows, there is a conflict of opinion as to the causes of the fibrosis, but what does it matter to the miner who is incapacitated whether in fact he has worked in a hard heading where there is 5 per cent. or where there is 90 per cent. free silica? The fact of the matter is, that the man is incapacitated. He is unable to work at all. In fact he is almost unable to walk. It does
not matter to him what percentage of silica is in the rock if, through following his employment, he is now unable to work.
I think that the whole subject can be divided into two parts. For the men who have worked in hard headings there cannot be a shadow of doubt that the silica, and the silicosis from which they suffer, are due to the rocks in that hard heading. The question which I would now submit to my hon. Friend is: Is he going to take any steps as regards the men who have simply worked at the coal face? I would remind him of the fact that 6 per cent. of the anthracite coal is silica. In fact, if you take pure anthracite and burn it, 30 to 40 per cent. of the ash which is left is pure silica I would ask my hon. Friend to do this one thing for the colliers, namely, to ask for an interim report from the Medical Committee which is considering this question and on which we have some of the finest experts in the country. I know that they are going to quarrel for quite a long time over the exact causes of the fibrosis, but that silicosis and so-called anthracosis incapacitate men from work is, I think, absolutely certain. These two conditions are an absolute bar at present to any men, particularly in the anthracite district—and I am speaking for that district only—receiving any compensation. There is not a single case from the whole of the anthracite district which has been successful after it has been contested.
I beg of the hon. Gentleman to put these colliers on the same level as bakers. He can do it simply by Order in Council. It is a simple matter for him, as long as he is convinced of the facts in this case. If a baker comes along and says to the medical referee, "Here are my arms; I am suffering from dermatitis," it is to be presumed that the man contracted this disease in the course of his employment. Why not apply precisely the same test to the colliers? If the hon. Gentleman goes down to the anthracite district today he will see sufferers there by the dozen. He will see at once that these men simply cannot work; they can hardly breathe. These men have contracted this terror in the night because they simply do not know what to do with it. They have contracted it in the course of their employment. I beg of my hon. Friend to say clearly whether he is or whether he is not going to alter these two conditions.
There are men in the anthracite district to-day who are looking to the Labour Government to see that this measure of justice is done to the men in that district.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: The hon. Member who has just spoken has drawn attention to a very difficult subject, which lies within the department of the Home Secretary, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the diagnosis of fibrosis as being one suitable for scheduling for workmen's compensation.

Mr. HOPKIN: Why not?

Dr. DAVIES: Because you can get fibrosis, unfortunately, not through industrial disease. The important point to bear in mind is that some of these cases of shortness of breath and cough are not due to industrial conditions, and one can understand that the Secretary of State when he has to issue an Order in Council to deal with these industrial diseases must be quite definite in issuing an order dealing with the specific cause of the disease. He can do that quite easily in regard to baker's dermatitis. I am certain that by the time the medical silicosis committee have finished their report they will have come to some definite and important result as regards silicosis, and in the course of time that will be scheduled and people who suffer from it will get resulting compensation.

Mr. HOPKIN: If a man is suffering from fibrosis of the lungs, and he has worked only as a miner, surely it cannot be denied that he contracted the fibrosis in the course of his employment.

Dr. DAVIES: Unfortunately, that does not necessarily follow. A man may work as a collier and develop heart disease, but you would not say that he suffered from heart disease as a result of working in the pit. A man working in the open air may on examination be found to have his lungs laden with coal dust, a form of anthracosis. It is an extremely difficult subject, but I am certain that the medical committee will come to an absolutely fair and just decision. The speech of the hon. Member has led the way very nicely to the remarks that I want to make with reference to the factory department of the Home Office, which is concerned specifically with the health of the workers in industry. The factory service
is a very important service and, as the years pass by, it will become more and more important. I visualise the time when it will become the most important medical service of the State, far more important than National Health Insurance, because we shall have to deal with the prevention of disease among industrial workers, or treat these cases in the very earliest possible time and see that every opportunity is given to the industrial workers so that they work under conditions suitable for their health and well-being. I have had a little doubt about the position of the factory medical service, and I put two questions on the subject recently. I asked the Minister of Labour whether she proposed
When introducing legislation to ratify the draft convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and 48 in the week, adopted at Washington on the 28th November, 1919, to give effect at the same time to the recommendations concerning the establishment of Government health services adopted on the same date.
The reply that I got from the Under-Secretary to the Home Office was:
The recommendation to which my hon. Friend refers was, I understand, intended to secure the establishment of a medical branch in connection with factory inspection. It was duly considered by the Government in 1920 on a report from the official delegate at the Washington Conference, and the view was formed that, as effect was already given in this country to the intention of the recommendation no action by the British Government appeared to be called for. In this view His Majesty's Government concur."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1930; cols. 253–4, Vol. 235.]
One of the great difficulties about the ratification of the Washington Convention has been the different interpretation which other nations have put upon the 48-hour week. We all remember the London Conference, where an attempt was made to get six different nations to agree to the same interpretation of the Convention. If the British Government are going to start the same game and to say: "We put a certain interpretation upon the Convention in regard to factory medical service and we think that we are right, therefore we propose to make no change," we cannot grumble or find fault if other nations think fit to act on similar lines on the 48 hours' question, and to say: "That is how we interpret the Convention, and we propose
to make no change." To obtain further information, I put another question to the Home Secretary. I asked:
Under what powers he appoints medical men to the factory service; are such medical men under lay control in his Department and, if so, whether, in view of the recommendation adopted by this country at the Washington Conference, he will constitute a separate health department for this service.
The Home Secretary replied:
The medical inspectors of factories are appointed in pursuance of the general powers conferred by Section 118 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, for the appointment of such inspectors as may be necessary for the execution of the Act. They constitute a separate, but integral, part of the Factory Department, and the senior medical inspector who is in charge of the branch acts under the directions of the Chief Inspector of Factories. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1930; col. 1400, Vol. 235.]
I have here a copy of the Washington Convention which refers, among other things, to the hours of work. There is also a recommendation concerning the establishment of Government health services which our Government, through their official delegate, signed at Washington. Here is the clause:
The general conference recommends that each member of the International Labour Organisation which has not already done so shall establish as soon as possible not only a system of efficient factory inspection but also in addition thereto a Government service specially charged with the duty of safeguarding the health of the workers, which will keep in touch with the International Labour Office.
I respectfully submit to the Under-Secretary that the present factory medical service does not come under that condition. What is the present service? We have our chief medical inspector of factories in London, who has a very small staff under him; he has four now and this year the number is to be increased to six. These six medical inspectors of factories represent the total medical staff of the Home Office concerned with industrial disease. It is true that we have throughout the country a large number of certifying surgeons who in each town or district are concerned with the certification of children for fitness for work, the health of the workers, inquiring into accidents, poisoning cases, etc. The certifying surgeons are general practitioners
in practice in the areas and they are a most important branch of the medical service.
Sooner or later, we understand, a Factories Bill will be introduced by the Government and in that Bill it is proposed that certain changes should be made in regard to the medical services of factories. The present certifying surgeons run the risk of being elbowed out for another class of medical men. At the present time the certifying surgeon is appointed directly by the Home Secretary. He is a Government servant and absolutely independent of any local control. A departmental Committee sat a few years ago and heard a lot of evidence. The certifying surgeons of the country, through their Association, not a trade union as I wish it was, gave evidence before the Committee. Unfortunately, the certifying surgeons, and I was one myself, had the idea that their evidence was not treated with the respect to which it was entitled, and we have a strong suspicion that the official delegate who went to Washington on behalf of the Home Office had very definite ideas about the medical services, the way they should be constituted, etc.; and his opinions are not the same as those of the certifying surgeons. They complain that they were treated with scant courtesy and were not given sufficient time to give their evidence. If the Home Secretary is going to produce legislation on the lines of that Report, he is not going to get the best results for the service.
I am anxious to impress upon the Home Secretary that he should visualise this factory medical service as one of the most important services of the Crown, and that instead of it being a more or less haphazard service as it was many years ago, it should become more and more every year a Government service, headed by a chief medical inspector of factories with a specialist staff going through the country and with this body of certifying surgeons in the various districts who know their job, are trained in industrial work, and in the diagnosis and treatment of industrial diseases. I hope he will see that this department is kept absolutely in the control of the State. One of the suggestions made is that this service should join with the school medical service, or that some other medical men should be brought in and run the factory medical service as a sideline. That will
be very detrimental to the efficiency of the service. The people of the country want to be sure that they have at hand, near the scene of their work, a man who knows their lives and the conditions under which they work, a man who can follow their industrial health just as well as he follows their natural health. If this service is kept in the hands of the general practitioner with a specially trained staff it will be for the ultimate benefit of the people of this country in preserving their health. These certifying surgeons will be able to recognise the danger in its early stages and will see that the people get the treatment to which they are entitled.
I feel strongly that the Home Office do not realise the importance of this matter from the worker's point of view. It is all very well to have a senior medical inspector in London who can send a man down to South Wales to inquire into the effect of the anthracite industry and the effect of silica, who can make special inquiries in the case of special diseases. No one wants to interfere with that, but I am concerned with the general medical practitioner at the bottom, and I say that an efficient factory medical service must have these men. The argument is some times used, why do this? There is an increased interest in welfare work; for many of these works and factories start their own welfare department. I agree, and very efficient they are. If they have their own medical man he may be doing nothing else except looking after the interests of the workers. The weak link however is this, that the medical man is appointed by the firm, they are his master, and if through any reason he gets into trouble and makes a suggestion with which they do not agree he runs the risk of dismissal. It may not be quite so easy to get another job. If the medical man was appointed by the Home Office he would be a Government servant and could not be dismissed and any suggestions he might bring forward for the good of the industry and the workers would be carried into effect.
It is not every employer who is up-to-date and recognises the value of good health, good surroundings and good social life to his workers. You may have a weak employer who is afraid to embark on an expenditure of some hundreds of pounds,
but if the medical man was appointed by the Government his position would be considerably strengthened and it would be ultimately for the benefit of the people. I hope the Home Secretary will look into the matter again and come to the decision that the present medical service does not conform to the conditions of the Washington Convention. I hope that the Government will ratify the Washington Convention with regard to health workers as well as with regard to the 48-hour week. We have given our signature; but we must see that the interpretation of the Home Secretary is the interpretation of the Washington Convention. We must not put our own interpretation upon it. The definition given by the Home Office in answer to my questions, probably supplied by the permanent officials, is contrary to the spirit of the Washington Convention and should not be accepted.

Mr. DENMAN: The speech to which we have just listened is fresh evidence of the many-sided activities of the Home Secretary. There is no Minister who covers a wider ground in our national life and who stands to be shot at from so great a variety of angles. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech but go back to other matters which have already been raised. The Home Secretary has replied to the question of naturalisation, and I want to thank him for his reply and for what he has done on that subject. Naturalisation is not an easy or a simple problem. None of us wants British citizenship to be cheap, and at the same time none of us wants it to be offered for sale. The high charges made for naturalisation has, to some extent, justified the comment that British citizenship was a matter of barter, and not open to the poor. Anyone who has in his constituency a number of aliens knows of cases in which people have been here for 30 and 40 years, and who had sons serving in the War. They were never able to obtain naturalisation because of the severe expense which it entailed. I welcome the decision of the Home Secretary to cheapen this procedure in appropriate cases, and I ask him to go forward with the good work he has begun and reduce, or abolish altogether, the taunt to which
I have referred, and make naturalisation a question of character and not a question of money at all.
There is another point upon which I should like to have the attention of the Under-Secretary, and that is the relationship between the Home Office and the local authorities, and the action of the Home Secretary in carrying out his duties under certain Acts. We have had more than one example this Session of the Home Secretary damping down and resisting local effort. We had some weeks ago, perhaps some months ago, the Liverpool case in which a local authority sought powers to have their own regulations relating to juvenile labour. Those regulations were such as reformers have been for decades seeking to achieve and here was an authority courageous enough to attempt to work those regulations themselves, and to lead the way. That particular authority had led the way in similar circumstances before, and that kind of local enterprise is a spirit which, I suggest, the Home Secretary ought to treat with the utmost encouragement. He ought to welcome it with both hands—instead of which, in this instance, it received the most grudging acquiescence here, with the intimation that it might be threshed out further upstairs. I do not know what was the ultimate fate of that particular proposal. More recently, we had a similar case in which a local authority, first, decided on a certain course and at a town's meeting that course was en-dorsed—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that that question cannot be discussed. I understand that the hon. Member is now referring to a particular Bill.

Mr. DENMAN: I am not referring to any specific Bill. I am referring to the action of the Home Secretary whose salary is at present under discussion. I am dealing with the administrative action which he from time to time takes, either in encouraging or in thwarting local authorities.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is making a general criticism he is in order, but he must not discuss a particular Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I have no intention of discussing the merits of any particular Bill. I am only discussing the extent to which the Home Secretary ought to encourage or discourage local enterprise, and giving an example of how local authorities can be very seriously thwarted. The process which I criticise is this. If a local authority, through its own council and officials, considers a subject and decides on a certain course, they bring their proposals here. Those proposals are examined upstairs, and the Home Secretary, using his legal powers, perfectly correctly—not only using his powers but performing his duty—puts in a report. Let us suppose that the Committee upstairs approves of the local authority's proposal and that the House of Commons endorses that approval. Then the Bill would naturally go to another place. What should we then expect the Home Secretary to do? Is he going to offer opposition and perhaps make difficulties between the two Houses of Parliament, or is he going to accept the progressive spirit of the local authority and of the House of Commons? If it were a party matter, if there were divisions of opinion, it might be for him to take a strictly official view. But supposing that, as in the instance I have in mind, Members on both sides are agreed in support of the local body, then for the Home Secretary to carry his opposition over the heads of the House of Commons to another place and to thwart the ambitions and the legitimate enterprise of a local authority, is a thing that ought not to be done. I appeal to the Home Secretary that if there be such a case outstanding he should withdraw his opposition, if opposition exists, before there occurs any untoward incidents in connection with the further procedure on such a Measure. I suppose it is impossible to deal further with that matter, without transgressing the rules of order, but I think it is clear enough to the Under-Secretary what is here meant, and it will be clear enough, in my own constituency, what is meant by the particular protest which I have made. Having made that protest, and having asked the friendly help of the Home Secretary in aiding the local authority and this House of Commons to obtain their will, I conclude by thanking the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary for the many pleasant letters I have had
from them. I suppose that in my constituency I have occasion to worry them more than most Members, and I should not be fair to them, indeed I should be lacking in courtesy, if I did not convey my thanks to them for the helpful and kindly acts which I have experienced at their hands during their term of office.

Mr. A. HENDERSON, Junr.: The Home Secretary, in his speech, referred to the question of alien seamen, a question which is causing grave concern in many ports of this country. Members of the Committee may not know that in the years which followed the termination of the War there was a great influx of coloured alien seamen to the ports of this country, and in 1925 the Home Office issued what is known as the Alien Coloured Seamen Order. Under that Order these coloured seamen have to register with the police authorities. Only those coloured seamen who were in the country at that time, or who were at that time employed in British ships, are eligible for registration. Unfortunately, the Order has not worked satisfactorily, and recently I asked the Home Secretary for the numbers of alien coloured seamen who had registered during the years from 1926 to 1928. I understood that there were no figures then available for the year 1929, but if those figures are now available, I ask the Under-Secretary to give that information to the Committee to-night. The problem is a serious one, because there are nearly 20,000 British seamen unemployed in this country.
The Secretary of State has, I think, indicated how the problem could be very largely solved by the shipowners of this country employing British seamen instead of alien seamen. Of course, this House has no authority at the moment to compel shipowners to follow that policy, but something might be done. It is suspected that at the present time smuggling is going on. The Home Secretary also indicated that that knowledge had come to the Home Office. People are making a livelihood out of smuggling these foreign seamen into the country, and they then receive a per capita grant from various people interested in the shipping industry in return for procuring this foreign labour. It is a very serious thing so far as my own constituency of Cardiff is concerned, not only
because of the unemployment that exists in that great port, but also from the social point of view. At the present time there are more than 500 half-caste children in Cardiff, and the authorities in the city are at a loss to know how to deal with the problem. People will not employ these half-castes, and they are going to be quite a problem in the future. All that I ask to-night is for information from the Under-Secretary of State as to whether the Home Office is satisfied that the 1925 Order is effective, with evidence, if any, to support that view, and if it is not so satisfied, what steps the Home Office proposes to take in order to deal with this very serious matter.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): My right hon. Friend has dealt with the questions raised by the Opposition, and I rise for the purpose of answering some further queries that have been put in relation to the work of the Department, but before turning to those matters of detail, I should like to reply to the question pressed upon my right hon. Friend by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) in connection with coroners' proceedings, and particularly in relation to the Reading case. He was anxious to know whether the inquest, as reported in the Press, had been reopened at the instigation of Scotland Yard. So far as my information goes, Scotland Yard officers have no knowledge of the statement attributed by the Press to the coroner, and I think that disposes at any rate of the question—

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does the Home Secretary approve of the procedure at Reading?

Mr. SHORT: That has been largely discussed in connection with the coroners' question, and my right hon. Friend has made a statement of his views. In connection with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), I can assure him that, while it would be out of order for me to go into the matter, his observations in relation to the matter that he clearly had in mind will not pass unnoticed by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) dealt with the system of factory inspection,
with special reference to safeguarding the health of the workers. He called attention to the fact that our medical inspectors consisted, I think, of four, and later of six, and suggested that there should be set up a more satisfactory system of medical inspection which, as I understood the hon. Member, should be under the State and fully controlled by the Department. That is a matter which would, I believe, involve new legislation. I have no doubt my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of discussing this matter when the Factory Bill comes before the House, and it would not be wise for me to anticipate the provisions of that Bill. Nevertheless, there is a great deal that he said which is worthy of sympathetic support and attention, and I can assure him also that his observations will not pass unnoticed.
In connection with the question of coloured seamen, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. A. Henderson, Junior), we are familiar with many of the distressing features arising from this problem, and particularly in so far as they affect the life of the City of Cardiff. The problem is inevitably bound, up with the large volume of unemployment which exists among British seamen, and there has been for some time an agitation, as to which I make no complaint, in respect to this matter. Quite recently, my colleague at the Board of Trade and myself received a very powerful deputation from the Seamen's Union, supported by Members of Parliament interested, and I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is made to cope with the difficulties of the problem.
We have to remember that there are two matters involved. We have British subjects who are coloured, and we have coloured seamen who are aliens, and while we can in a very reasonable way, under our administrative powers, deal with the alien coloured seamen, we have no power to deal with British subjects. On the other hand, we are extending our activities in connection with the prosecution and, in some cases, deportation of coloured boarding-house keepers, who undoubtedly make a profit out of the employment of these men and in many cases supply them with forged documents. My right hon. Friend and I are
hoping that this increased activity on the part of the Department, in association with the police, will tend to curtail and hamper this illegal traffic.

Mr. A. HENDERSON, Junr.: Can my hon. Friend say how many registration certificates were issued in the year 1929?

Mr. SHORT: I have not that information by me at the moment, but I will see that it is supplied to my hon. Friend later. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) raised the question of workmen's compensation arising out of the disease of silicosis, and for the second time called my attention to the incidence of this complaint, and the need for some further change, especially in connection with the 50 per cent. limitation. Not long ago this matter was raised on the Adjournment, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his persistency in this matter. Following upon his representation on the Adjournment, he supplied to my right hon. Friend a large number of cases, and I gave him an undertaking, to which he has referred to-night, that we would send an inspector down to investigate these cases. He will not expect me to say to-night what action will follow, but I can assure him that an inspector associated with the Mines Department has already been sent down, and a medical inspector of mines is pursuing the matter and investigating the cases to which he referred.

Mr. HOPKIN: Is this specific a subject of the Medical Committee?

Mr. SHORT: The Medical Research Council recently set up an expert committee to institute and co-ordinate research into this subject, and the committee have commenced their work. It must be realised that the question is complicated, and that a good deal of research work will be necessary before they are in a position to reach any definite conclusion. I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of the effect of coal dust on the lungs will be brought to the attention of the committee, and will form part of their investigations, but there is likely to be some delay before we secure a report. On the other hand, I can assure him that we shall make every reasonable effort to ask them to push on with their studies.

Mr. HOPKIN: Is there any chance of an interim report?

Mr. SHORT: I will certainly inquire what is the position, but, as I say, if anything can be done to facilitate the production of this report, which is on a matter both urgent and important, I can assure him that it shall be done. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) dealt with various matters, including the treatment of juvenile offenders, and he invited my right hon. Friend to view with sympathy the better treatment of such offenders. I can assure him that in that respect we find ourselves in complete harmony with him. In connection with the factory inspectorate, he asked me some questions in relation to the qualifications that might be required, and as to what action had been taken in connection with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the factory inspectorate. In March, 1930, my right hon. Friend made an announcement in connection with the recommendation of that committee, and said that he proposed to increase the general inspection staff, to amalgamate the men's and women's staffs, and to strengthen the technical branches—medical, engineering and electrical. These increases will be spread over a period of five years.
Further, he proposes that the general inspection staff attached to the inspection divisions and districts will be raised in number over a period of five years from 180 to 243; the number of superintending inspectors' divisions from 10 to 11; and the number of inspection districts from 83 to 96. The additional division will be formed in south-east England, where there has been a great development of industry. At the end of five years, the full staff will consist of chief inspector, three deputy-chief inspectors, 11 superintending inspectors, 46 Class IA inspectors, 96 Class IB inspectors, and 90 Class II inspectors. There will be certain rearrangements arising out of the amalgamation of the men's and women's staffs, and the technical branches will be increased, the medical staff from five to eight, the electrical staff from five to 12, and the engineering staff from six to 10.
In regard to the qualifications, it will be recognised that our factory system is developing on highly technical lines, and certain high qualifications will be required, but not necessarily academic
qualifications. We shall certainly look for the right class of person possessing the right class of qualification to perform the duties. The method first of all is that the candidates are personally interviewed to see that they are fit, and then there is finally some competitive examination.

Mr. MOSES: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether all the candidates will be interviewed?

Mr. SHORT: I would not like to commit myself to that. I am not fully seized of the policy that will be pursued, but that is the general practice. It may be that some applicants will possibly be ruled out on the first count, but, generally speaking, the policy that I have enunciated will be followed. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) made reference to the Industrial Museum, and I am grateful for their observations. The desirability of bringing this Museum to the notice of the country generally, and to employers and workpeople in particular, is fully recognised by the Department. Since my right hon. Friend came into office, we have circulated to Members of Parliament invitations to visit the Museum, but I regret to say that very few took advantage of the invitation. The report upon the Museum as published in the Factory Inspector's Report for 1928 or 1929 indicates that a large number of people visited the Museum, and I understand that they were the right type of people, the type which has something to learn as employers and employers' representatives. If any words of mine and of hon. Members can attract further attention to the existence of this Museum, and increase the number of visitors, we shall not have spoken tonight in vain.
There is one other point to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) referred, namely, the absence of the annual report. That is not our fault. We should have liked to have seen the Chief Inspector's report available for Members when this Vote reached the House. We seek as a rule to do so, but this Vote has come on somewhat earlier than usual, and consequently the report is not yet available. The hon. Member also raised the question of the British-born
wife of a German who had been separated, and possibly the German had been deported to Germany. The hon. Member made some complaint respecting the attitude of the Department upon that issue. Let me say, in that connection, that an alien, strictly speaking, can come to this country to take employment only if he obtains a permit from the Ministry of Labour, but we view these cases very largely upon compassionate grounds, and if the case warrants it there is an understanding between the Ministry of Labour and my right hon. Friend, and usually facilities are afforded to the alien to join his family in this country.
There is only one other matter which calls for any further observation, and that is the position of probation officers. This subject was raised by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris), and it was referred to by other hon. Members. The questions they raised referred to salaries, recruitment and training. It is only since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act of 1925 that the Secretary of State acquired any real powers in relation to this matter. As a result of the passing of that Act and consideration of this matter, we have now laid down a scale of salaries and qualifications, in connection with the appointment of probation officers, have established a contributory superannuation scheme, and have sought to reorganise the areas and to obtain better service from the officers concerned. Further, we have just initiated a scheme, which is not yet operating, but which will ensure a better class of officer being appointed, and will secure more adequate training of these officers prior to their appointment or on their appointment. Generally speaking, I can satisfy the Committee that in this matter we are making every reasonable effort to ensure a great improvement in matters relating to probation officers. I have now dealt with most of the points raised in relation to this Vote, and if there are any which have escaped my notice, it is not because of any lack of courtesy but because I did not take any elaborate notes of them.

Sir J. WITHERS: Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say about observation centres? I know he and the Home Secretary
have this matter very much at heart, and I hope he will tell us what is is their minds.

Mr. KINLEY: There is one point not touched upon so far, except in the final sentence of the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I want to raise it in the hope that we may have from the Minister some hope that additional steps will be taken in the near future. I refer to the question of those who are known as the Irish political prisoners. It is quite an old story now, and one which has been referred to on more than one occasion in this House already, but it is one which will be an eternal shame to us until we finally end it, and I hope we may have some definite promise upon it to-night. There are those people who challenge the view that these men are political prisoners but, as far as the Department itself is concerned, the proof is in existence that these were political prisoners and nothing but political prisoners. So far as heavy sentences are concerned, that does not, for us, constitute the measure by which we should judge whether the crime was a political or non-political one.
The facts are as follows: These four men did break into a bank armed, and did steal £240 and got away with it. Subsequently they were captured and charged. So far as the Court is concerned, the Court had only to take into account the evidence which was presented to it, and one has to admit that it was proved quite clearly to the Court that these men did, armed, break into a bank and take the money and disappear.

Mr. KNIGHT: Is that a political offence?

Mr. KINLEY: So far we are dealing only with the Court and from the Court's point of view it can take no other evidence into account. There was the evidence presented to them, and on that they were fully justified in sentencing the prisoners. But when the matter is brought into this House we are not compelled to judge it from the same point of view as the Judge who sits in Court. We now can take into account the question of whether this was a crime committed by criminals for criminal purposes or whether it was, in fact, an act of war committed by soldiers acting under the orders of their superior officer. The shameful thing about the whole business is that the Home
Office has in its possession full proof that that is the case. It has been made clear to the Home Office more than once that these men were soldiers in the Irish Republican Army, and that they received an order from their superior officers, and that they, as soldiers, obeyed the order thus given. In those circumstances I submit that we in this House not only have the right to declare that these are political offenders but that we can take no other view than that they were political offenders, and we should consider them from that point of view.
Appeals have been made from England, from Scotland, and by their own people in the Free State, in which it has been stated officially that these men were soldiers in the Irish Republican Army, and that they acted under the instructions of their superior officer. When the matter was raised on a previous occasion, so far as one could gather from the reply given, the reason why these men had not been released was because the crime was committed somewhere about six months after the amnesty. Had they committed this crime six months previously, they would have been released, but because it was six months after the amnesty they were to remain in prison, one of them for the rest of his natural life and three others for 10 years each—for the sake of just a handful of money! I understand the Home Office has since been provided with proof that the reason why this crime was committed was because all was not well in the Free State; that internal disputes caused difficulty and that the order that was issued before the amnesty did not, by reason of this trouble, arrive in the hands of those soldiers in England until the time when the crime was committed. I submit that the circumstances would justify the Home Office in taking up a very different attitude from that which has been adopted, and, indeed, at the time when preparations were being made to bring forward this case, came the news that two of the four prisoners had been released. For that I tender my sincere thanks to the Home Secretary; I congratulate him on the step he has taken, and I would appeal to him to go a step further and say that the other two shall be also released. I insist that they were soldiers in the Irish Republican Army—that is known; and that they were acting
under the orders of their superior officer—that is known. Further, it was the final hostile act in the war which was being waged at that time, and since then there has been no similar act on the part of other members of the Irish Republican Army in this country. From the point of view, therefore, of protecting people in this country there can be no interest in retaining these men in prison any longer; it is simply vindictive punishment. When the men were captured feeling was high and blood was flowing. There was a great deal of enmity between ourselves and the inhabitants of the Free State. But after the time which has elapsed, after the punishment which these men have suffered, and after the proofs which have been adduced, what Member is there in this House who would say that these men, who were taking part in a fight which, in their opinion, was destined to secure the freedom of their country, should be retained in prison for years longer? I do not believe there are 10 Members of the House who could be brought to vote for a continuation of this imprisonment. Therefore, having thanked the Home Secretary for the release of two of the men, I would now plead with him to complete his good work by setting free the other two.

Mr. CLYNES: With the permission of the Committee, I would like to say a word in reply to my hon. Friend opposite. The matter he has brought before us and on which he asks for a reply is one of the recommendations of the Young Offenders Committee, and it will be most earnestly considered with the other recommendations at an early date. With reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley), I can offer no observations whatever on the merits of the action of the prisoners or the offence of which they were convicted, or on the action of the Court. I can only say that for a long time past I have given the closest attention to these cases, and some time ago I took the necessary steps to effect the release of two of the four prisoners. There is a real difference between the two who are now in prison and the two who are out, but into that difference I cannot enter, nor can I explain to the House, because it would be most irregular to do so, the reasons which prompted me in the exercise of the prerogative that rests, in the first instance
in the hands of the Home Secretary, and ultimately with higher powers. I can only say that the form of the demands made upon me some time ago and the character of the pressure that was exercised with a view to compelling me to take certain action have been of real disservice to the men, and I hope that such pressure and such demands kill not be repeated if the interests of the men still in prison are to be considered.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: The hon. Member who spoke for the Government just before the Home Secretary referred to the industrial museum. I spent a very interesting two or three hours in that museum and found there a very great deal which I think would be of use in the factories of this country. I am wondering whether we are taking full advantage of that museum. A great deal of money has been spent in equipping it, and I think we ought to do more to attract visitors from our factories. The Under-Secretary mentioned that numbers of employers have been there, but that visits had not been paid by many Members of Parliament. It is no doubt very useful for employers to see what the museum has to show, but I also think it is desirable that the foremen in the various works, and even the charge hands working under those foremen, should spend some time in the museum to see the various safety devices that have been installed.
When it is realised that even a cut finger may take away a skilled man from his work for some two or three weeks, and that probably such work is so skilled that several months are necessary to train a man for it, it is very desirable indeed that every possible effort should be made to avoid even these minor accidents. In this museum one sees all types of safety devices, such as gas masks, and other practical safety appliances for the protection of operatives working machinery. There are all sorts of methods for protecting the belting, and I ask the Home Secretary to take an opportunity of circularising, the various factories of the country in order to attract this particular type of visitor.
There is another point which I would like to raise. I have noticed recently that many of the insurance companies which are taking the risk of accident insurance are issuing to various factories
some very interesting and useful posters giving the operatives an idea of how accidents happen and how to avoid them. These posters are certainly not expensive to purchase in large numbers, and I think they would be a very useful addition to the help already offered by the Home Office. If they would pick out the best of these posters for circulation the cost would be trifling; it might save a great many accidents, and it would enable us to keep our skilled men at their jobs.
Reference has been made to the training of factory inspectors. The factory inspector and the head inspector who showed me round the museum were a very suitable type of men for that work. I have in my experience, however, come across men who, it seemed to me, had not had sufficient practical experience in engineering works. I think that for this special service, which is a very important one it is desirable that those men should have had practical experience as mechanics in engineering or similar works. It seems to me that a factory inspector, to do his duty thoroughly, requires to have had some early training with various machines. I agree that such training is difficult to arrange, and it must be particularly difficult for the Home Office to arrange, but, in my opinion, a certain amount of practical experience in works is an essential qualification for such an individual. I should be the last person to make any complaint with regard to the factory inspectors' visits to the works. I feel that those visits are necessary, but I suggest that we could, by careful investigation, remove the feeling that many employers have at present that a factory inspector only comes into the works in an inquisitorial way. I would like to see the feeling cultivated that the factory inspectors can be friends of the manufacturers, although it must be recognised that they are there at the same time to put right those firms which are not doing the things which they ought to do. The inspectors ought to go into the works to prevent accidents, and at the same time befriend the various manufacturers of the country.
I believe that a great many accidents happen through employers not knowing what they should know. I think one of the greatest sources of causing accidents at the present time is the untidy shop.
Many accidents occur through people stumbling over things, and having to pass round obstacles in order to get past them, and thus coming into contact with dangerous machinery. I think that more accidents are caused in this way than in any other way. The factory inspector can point out to employers the proper way to keep his factory. For instance, the inspector can say to the employer, "If that gangway were cleared away, you would have fewer accidents." If a policy of that kind were adopted, we should develop a feeling amongst the manufacturers very much opposite to what it is to-day.
Another question to which I would like to refer is that of the employment of aliens. We want more employment for our own British workers. When foreign-made machinery comes into this country it seems to be considered absolutely necessary for the first few months or years to work that machinery with labour from the country in which the machinery was made. I wonder some times whether that is not rather stretching the point, and I think we ought to be able to find in this country men who could work that machinery. I hope that the Home Office will investigate this matter which is very necessary at a time when we have so much unemployment.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a question for the Ministry of Labour which gives certificates to those who are employed for that purpose.

Mr. SMITH: I was about to refer to the question of passports.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that all these permits are subject to the approval of the Home Office?

Mr. SMITH: I had in mind the question of passports in regard to this labour, and I feel that at the present time when we have so many men wanting work, that everything should be done in the direction which I have indicated. When one comes across cases of German and other foreign workmen who remain doing work in this country for six or eight months at a time, I often wonder whether it is really necessary to keep those men so long in this country. If something could be done to investigate these particular cases, I am sure that it would be a good thing. There is little
doubt also in connection with alien seamen that if the Home Office were in closer touch with the shipowners all over the country some improvement could be effected, and every effort should be made to employ more British seamen.

Mr. HAYES (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,205,308, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, Bonus to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, including Places of Detention, a Grant-in-Aid of the Police Federation, and a Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Criminal Police Commission."—[Note.—£5,200,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I notice that Sub-head G of this Vote—International Criminal Police Cornmission—is apparently a new service, and I would like the Home Secretary to explain for what purpose this expenditure is being incurred, where the International Police Commission site, and what its operations will be. No doubt the answer will be satisfactory, but I think the Committee would like to know, as it appears to be a fresh service. Then I notice that the item for Metropolitan Police in Dockyards and Military Stations shows a decrease of £20,000, and I should like to ask what is the reason for that decrease. I am under the impression that there has been a rearrangement of the police services in the dockyards, and that they have been taken over by the local staffs; and, if that be so, it may account for the decrease.
With regard to Sub-head E—Grants in respect of Police Expenditure—there is an increase of £3,161,000. I realise that, of that amount, £2,074,000 is due to a rearrangement of local taxation accounts, but still that leaves an increase of £285,000 in the total amount granted by the House of Commons to local police
organisations. Perhaps we might have some explanation of that increase. Then, under the heading of "Metropolitan Police,' we have a sum of £10,000 odd for the salaries of the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioners, and so on, and I want to touch very lightly on this matter. I think it includes the examination of taxicabs and vehicles which have to be licensed or passed, or deals with the granting of badges and licences to taxi-cab and motor drivers. In view of the fact that the living of these men who obtain these licences and get their vehicles passed depends on their being treated in the way in which the House would wish them to be treated, I should like to ask if there have been any complaints in relation to these licences, and, if so, what is the nature of the complaints; whether there have been any investigations, either by the police or at the instance of the Home Office; whether any of the complaints have proved well-founded; and, if so, what has been done to prevent the recurrence of the cause of the complaints.
10.0 p.m.
The grants under Sub-head E in respect of police expenditure cover what is granted by the House from the Exchequer for equipping and clothing the police in various parts of the Kingdom. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and myself have sat on the Watch Committee of our native city of Norwich, and so we are aware of the working of these grants. I am under the impression, from my experience in corporation work, that there are no fewer than 350 different types and patterns of police clothing, and I think the time has come when the Home Secretary should take very strong steps to see that there is a standardisation of pattern and of quality of material for the uniforms used by our police forces. I know, of course, that badges and crests and buttons referring to counties or cities must be different. That is a matter of civic pride, and, of course, I concede it; but, in regard to questions of helmets and patterns of uniforms, quality of clothing, type and colour of clothing, and so on, there should be standardisation, so that we may have one or two, or perhaps three, different patterns from which the municipalities can draw, and so save the taxpayer and the ratepayer the very considerable
expenditure involved by this variation of patterns. There may be some reason for the variation of pattern, but, having thought the matter out, I can see no reason for it whatever, and it seems to be quite beyond what is reasonable that there should be between 300 and 400 different types of specification. These points are not of a contentious nature, and I trust that the Home Secretary will take an opportunity of dealing with them.

Mr. CLYNES: As all experienced Members of the House know, it is a great ad vantage to any Minister having to deal with questions of detail, and particularly with such items as are to be found in the pages of this Vote, if he receives some little notice of any intention to raise them. I am not complaining—

Mr. SAMUEL: I agree that that is so, and I took the precaution early this morning to ring up the Home Office and present my compliments to the right hon. Gentleman, and give him notice that I was going to raise both these points. I spoke to the right hon. Gentleman's private secretary.

Mr. CLYNES: I can only say that to-day has been an exceptionally busy day for me. I have been occupied during the whole morning, and I regret that I have not had the opportunity of dealing with these points. In a general way I can say that there is an increase in police costs of the very large amount to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and it may be that some of that increase was due to the action of the Government which preceded the present one. I should prefer, therefore, as I understand that this Vote will be carried over, to defer to some later date a full reply to the hon. Gentleman on the points he has raised regarding police expenditure.
I may say that there has been some question as to the conduct of certain police officers in relation to matters of discipline, I think arising out of the licensing of taxicabs. One of the police officers concerned was dismissed, and he has now appealed under the Police Appeals Act for a reconsideration of the case. It would, therefore, be wrong for me to go fully into it, but I will bear in mind the representations which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. SAMUEL: I would point out, in case the right hon. Gentleman's reply is deferred until there is again an opportunity of dealing with this Vote, that it bears very hardly on the living of these men if they are not treated properly when they go for their licences.

Mr. CLYNES: It is also the fact that in such cases it very often prejudices men's future opportunities of employment to reveal too much, and there is a great deal to be said for not making too public the whole of the facts which sometimes cause disciplinary action to be taken. However, I will see what it may be proper and feasible for me to do.
On the question of police clothing, there are two aspects, relating to standard clothes and standard patterns. The Home Office has done a great deal to secure standard clothes but finds it extremely difficult to secure standard patterns. The police are local bodies and we have found it hard to override the local sentiment in the 180 types of uniforms. Some scope has to be allowed. The Home Office has gone into the matter of standard uniforms from time to time, and in, 1907 it was agreed that it might be possible to standardise the type of garment, leaving each force to have its own badge, but further conferences have failed to carry the matter further in face of local prejudice, and the Home Office considers that nothing would be gained by pressing it. The matter having been raised on the ground of economy is being further considered. I know the interest the hon. Member has in this matter because of his association with other committees.
I would like to say a word on the subject of the proposed police college. The college has been welcomed as a most promising part of the structure of our police service. A sub-committee at work on the foundations of the scheme is representative of all the experience and difficulties of service in the police force. The scheme which is being prepared has three main features, the conditions of entry, the scope of the college force and the position of the officers who have successfully passed through the college. There must be many pitfalls in such a scheme. One of the most fatal mistakes would be to overstress the merely theoretical side of police work. The scheme will not be
primarily intended as giving directions for the every-day work of the police force, which ought to be obtained in the course of actual police work. It is intended for the double purpose of providing officers who have special qualifications with opportunities that they would not otherwise enjoy for widening their horizons and enlarging their personality, and of instituting a centre for research into police organisation in a way which would hardly be practicable in an individual force.
I do not wish the Committee to relate this too closely to particular appointments which from time to time have been the cause of criticism in different parts of the country, but I want the police force to be absolutely a civil force, and I would therefore like to develop this college so that the best of the personnel of the police force should find an opportunity of coming to the top and taking the higher and more responsible posts. They may rise from the humble position of a constable, so that in future we should not have to go outside for the heads of the police force.

Mr. EDE: The House will have heard the last few words of the right hon. Gentleman with very considerable pleasure. There is a great feeling on this side of the House in particular, and I have no doubt it is shared in other parts, that the highest positions should be open to men who join the force in its lowest ranks, and we shall watch with interest the development of the college in the hope that it will do something to enable that ideal to be realised. I shall have to mention another matter to-night, because I am afraid that before the Vote is next before the Rouse the event to which I refer will have happened. The Home Secretary is responsible to this House for the Metropolitan Police Force and that Force is responsible for the conduct and good order of the great race meeting on Epsom Downs at the end of this month or the beginning of June. Many members of his Force are employed on that occasion. For many years I was a member of the Epsom Urban District Council. I have had communications with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors on this matter, and I know the anxiety Epsom races have caused them and the way they have endeavoured to secure good order.
During recent years the force has been largely used to assist the Grand Stand Association in some quite commercial transactions for the letting of land for the parking of vehicles. I wish he could use his influence with the Association to make sure that it is clear who are the people entitled to receive money in respect of these parking places. I have seen his officers having to settle disputes between people more or less of the gypsy fraternity, who each claimed that the Grand Stand Association has allowed them the use of the land. It must considerably add to the difficulties of the force if that kind of thing goes on. I know his Department can exercise considerable pressure on the Grand Stand Association in this matter, because one of the happiest episodes of my life was going with one of the Assistant Commissioners of his Department over various parts of Epsom Downs and with the secretary of the Grand Stand Association. The Assistant Commissioner assured the secretary that unless he fell in with the local authority, he would withdraw the police and leave them to manage the races themselves. That was a prospect the Grand Stand Association did not contemplate with equanimity. That is a kind of difficulty that is not likely to arise again, because I believe that that secretary of the Grand Stand Association has since passed to a world where I understand horse races are no more.
I am sorry to allude to another matter on which I have addressed questions to my right hon. Friend and which I also addressed to the present Lord Bridgeman when he held my right hon. Friend's distinguished office. I regret certain prosecutions by the Metropolitan Police after these meetings, and it is a great pain to me as a magistrate to fine men for playing certain games which I played on the recommendation of the Army, when I was in France. There are games for which men should be fined. I have played them myself, but I knew I was running a risk. Crown and Anchor is a game that should be put down. I ran a Crown and Anchor Board myself, and I knew that if I had been caught I should have paid the penalty. There is another game for the playing of which the police in this country insist on prosecuting, though I do not think it is a game within the meaning of the Act; it enabled us to win the War in spite of the staff. I mean
the game of House. It is not a gamble at all; it is a quite steady investment for the banker and everybody knows it. If we started playing House on a desert island, and my hon. and gallant Friend, being the Gentleman with the loudest voice amongst the people shipwrecked, was the banker, at the end of a certain time he would possess the money of all the others. There is a feeling amongst those who play the game that this is a very unjust and tyrannical use of police powers that it should be regarded as gambling and that magistrates should be called upon to convict people who play it. It seems to me to be a quite unjustifiable interference with legitimate rights to prosecute people for playing the game, and it probably drives them to other games which are far more pernicious in their effects and which have more of a gambling nature. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to see that better order is preserved on the Downs through the Grand Stand Association acting in co-operation with the force and that these petty persecutions may cease.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I say, as a matter of personal explanation, for fear the right hon. Gentleman might be under a wrong impression, that I hope he will not blame his staff for not informing him that I proposed to raise the question of expenditure. I only notified the Home Office that I would raise the clothing and licences points.

Mr. MUFF: Having sat on a watch committee for some years in the West Riding, I want to emphasise the remarks of the hon. Member opposite with regard to the clothing of the police. I believe that the Home Office could effect great economies if they standardised, not the type of uniform, but, at any rate, the specification for the cloth itself. We in the West Riding are supposed to know something about cloth and, in our own police force, insist that the men should be clothed in the very best serge for summer and Melton for winter. But, going about the country, I notice that, if any sunshine comes at all, the summer cloth at any rate, has faded and some of them look rather shabby. If the Home Office could say there shall be a certain weight of cloth for the serge for summer clothing and a certain weight for the winter clothing, a certain fast dye and so forth—the mills could tell them what to provide—by mass production they
could produce the cloth more cheaply. We believe we can clothe our own police force more cheaply than they can in the South. The Home Secretary would be performing a real service if, through his officials, he could specify what type of cloth has to be used for summer and winter and, what is more important, the weight of that cloth. The policeman has to do his work on a hot summer day with 20 or 21 ounce cloth when he could get cloth of 17, 18 or 19 ounces much more cheaply. The policeman himself would enjoy more comfort and the country would save thousands of pounds.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PALESTINE (SHERIF HUSSEIN AND SIR HENRY McMAHON).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Mr. COCKS: I rise to make an appeal to the Government to publish certain correspondence which has not yet been published which vitally affects the interests of the Arab population of Palestine and has a vital bearing upon the respective claims of the Zionists and the Arabs in the Holy Land. The facts which I wish to put before the House briefly are as follows: At the beginning of the War—in 1915—the British Government was very anxious to bring the Arabs into the War on our side to revolt against the Turks, and take our part in the campaign we were then waging with Turkey. In order to do that, on the instigation, I believe, or the suggestion, of the late Lord Kitchener, certain negotiations took place between the Arabs represented by the Sherif Hussein of Mecca, and Sir Henry McMahon, our High Commissioner in Egypt, representing the British Government, and negotiating in the name of the British Government. In the course of these negotiations, a large number of
letters passed; very important correspondence took place. This correspondence has not been officially published. For many years now I have been interested in this matter and I have pieced together information from different quarters, and I have a very shrewd idea, as to how that correspondence proceeded. We have not the time to-night to go into the correspondence in detail, but briefly I should like to say that in July, 1915, the Sherif Hussein sent a letter to Sir Henry McMahon, in which he asked that the independence of the Arabs should be recognised in a certain area, the area being south of the 37th degree of latitude. That does not mean much to hon. Members who have not a map before them, but, roughly, it means a line drawn from the extreme north-eastern corner of the Mediterranean running across to the Persian frontier. He asked that the independence of the countries lying south of that line should be recognised by the British Government. Some other letters passed and eventually, on the 25th October, Sir Henry McMahon wrote a letter in which he said that he accepted the Arab claim, subject to certain modifications. He ruled out the provinces of Bagdad and Basra, in Southern Mespotamia, in which Britain had special interests. He also ruled out what he described as the portion of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, in which we were not "free to act without detriment to the interests of France." He said:
Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories included in the boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca.
In a final letter in January, 1916, he said:
I have received orders from my Government to inform you that all your demands are accepted.
As a result of that correspondence and the pledges then given to the Arabs, they came into the War on our side and, under the leadership of Colonel Lawrence and others, did great service for the Allied cause. This correspondence took place and these pledges were given to the Arabs two years before the famous Balfour Declaration, in which we viewed with favour "the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people." It has been contended
that these pledges, which have not been published by the British Government but are in possession of the British Government, did not include Palestine. To my mind, after examining what I know of the documents, that argument cannot be sustained. The whole suggestion was that the land to be excluded from the pledge was the part of Syria which lies to the west of the four districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo. If hon. Members will look at the map they will see that these four towns run up to the hinterland of Syria and lie to the north of Palestine. Damascus is on the southernmost point and lies well to the north of Palestine. The other three are still further north of Palestine. The territory to the west of these districts is clearly the sea coast, the coastal district of the province of Syria in which France has special interest and which, a few years later, became under the military occupation of France and now forms part of the mandated territory of France.
If it is still contended that Palestine is not included in the pledge, I suggest that if the Government will publish the correspondence, we shall know exactly what the pledges are, and be able to judge for ourselves. For two reasons I plead with the Government to reconsider their decision and to publish the correspondence. In the first place, the House will have to discuss the report of the Palestine Commission, a very important report, and very important matters will have to be settled with regard to the conflicting claims of Zionists and Arabs. It has been said by some that these pledges, as I have described them, conflict entirely with the Balfour Declaration. I do not say that. I do think there may be some diversity between the two documents, but it is the task of statesmanship to resolve difficulties of that nature. But I do say that if the pledges are as I think they are, then they are absolutely opposed to the extreme Zionist claim to make Palestine as Jewish as England is English.
We shall have to discuss this matter and come to some decision upon it, and the House, in order to come to a fair and right decision, ought to have these documents beforehand, so that we may be able to judge for ourselves. I ask the
Government to publish these documents for this other reason. Our whole position in the East, as everyone will admit, is sustained not merely by our military power but because Oriental peoples believe that on the whole we rule according to the principles of justice, but there is a feeling amongst the Arabs, a growing feeling, that we got their assistance during the War by giving certain pledges, and the War being over, we do not wish to carry out these pledges and have suppressed the correspondence. The only way to stop that feeling is for the Government to publish the correspondence so that we may know what has happened and the nature of the pledges. I ask the Government to reconsider their decision and publish this correspondence in order that the truth may be known and judgment delivered.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I should like to support the plea for the publication of these documents. The Government cannot deny that these pledges were actually made. Certain definite pledges were given by Sir Henry McMahon in 1915, and on those pledges the Arabs came in and fought on our side. Later on, leaflets were dropped by aeroplanes in Palestine urging them to join us and giving the same pledges. In answer to a question I put to the Under-Secretary of State, he said that nowhere has this correspondence been officially published but that there are unofficial reports. It is most undesirable that there should be unofficial reports. We ought to have it definitely in black and white what we said, whether we were right or wrong. The peoples in the East to-day think that we gave the promise and, having given it, dare not publish the facts. Nothing is more mischievous in the case of Eastern peoples than for a person who has made a promise to go back upon it. Not long ago, when negotiations were going on between the Imam of the Yemen and Sir Gilbert Clayton, it was stated that we were going to carry out certain things. The Imam said, "How do I know that you are going to carry it out?" Sir Gilbert Clayton said, "You have the word of the British Government," and the Imam turned round and said, "Have you not made promises already to the Arabs; and what have you done?"
That broken pledge is going to affect our prestige throughout the East, and I
beg the hon. Member to publish the correspondence and make perfectly clear what has happened. If we have not made these promises, as he says, and if it was not most definitely laid down in that letter of Sir Henry McMahon that they were to have the Mediterranean coast up to a certain parallel, if that it not correct, surely by publishing the correspondence, the Under-Secretary can clear himself and the Government of the charge of having broken the pledge. I hope he will consider this matter, and will tell the truth as to what has happened. We may have been wrong. We were in great danger at the time and we made pledges first to the Arabs, then to the Jews, and agreements with the French, some of them contradictory. I beg the Under-Secretary, although it is a long time ago, to publish the correspondence before we have those debates which are bound to come in regard to the future of Palestine, so that we may know exactly where we stand and the Arabs also will know exactly where they stand.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I wish to support the appeal which has been made for the publication of this correspondence. I am not associated either with the Arab committee, or the Jewish committee, because I hold that, somehow, the Government and the House must find a means of settlement as between the contending claims, but I suggest that, if we are going to judge the matter rightly, it is emphatically necessary that we should have all the facts before us. In order that we may have all the facts, I join in pressing that an official and complete report of this correspondence should be published. I wish to raise one other matter which has reference to this subject and about which I have just learned by cable from Jerusalem. On more than one occasion at Question Time I have pressed upon the Government the fact that one means of securing a better atmosphere in Palestine is by treating the political prisoners in a different manner from that in which they are treated now. Particularly I have asked the Government not to carry out the death penalty upon those who have been sentenced to death whether on the one side or on the other.
I regret that I have not been able to give the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies longer notice of the point which I wish to raise, but the cablegram has only been in my hands for a few
minutes. It is a cablegram from Jerusalem stating that 39 working-class prisoners in the gaol there declared a hunger strike on 5th May. They claim the abolition of the death penalty in these cases, the abolition of flogging, handcuffing and enforced labour in the case of political prisoners, and the establishment of a special regime for those prisoners. I realise that the hon. Gentleman will not be able to give a detailed reply now but, no doubt, he has been considering the conditions under which these prisoners are confined, and I would ask him to inquire into this matter immediately and to do his utmost to create a better atmosphere in Palestine by treating such offenders in the best possible way during their confinement. I also ask him to consider very carefully the suggestion that the death penalty should not be imposed for offences of this character.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I am not quite sure what object my hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) has in pressing me on this question of the McMahon correspondence. I must confess also to some surprise that the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) should adopt the same line, because any criticism that he may make of us in this matter is, in reality, a criticism of the late Government of which I understand he was a whole-hearted supporter.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I criticised their policy.

Dr. SHIELS: The present Government have taken no new or independent line in this matter. They have not struck out in any new direction. They have merely placed themselves in the position adopted by their predecessors during the past 10 years. I may carry the recollection of the House back as far as 1921 when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, made a full statement on this very question. He pointed out that the correspondence with the Sherif of Mecca was long and inconclusive in character and that it came to an end with the entry of the Sherif into the War before anything in the nature of a definite or formal agreement had been reached. He also
pointed out that the pledges contained in the correspondence, whatever may have been their precise nature and scope, were given to the Sherif of Mecca and not to the Arabs of Palestine or of any other specific locality.
The nature of these pledges was fully explained in the statement of policy published in the White Paper, Cmd. 1700 of 1922. That White Paper, as the House may remember, was issued by the Coalition Government, of which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was the head. The definition there given was that the whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was excluded from British pledges. Precisely the same line was taken by the Conservative Government which came into office on the fall of the Coalition Government in the Autumn of 1922. In a despatch dated 4th October, 1923, which was published in a White Paper, Cmd. 1989, the Duke of Devonshire, who held the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies at that time, accepted the general conclusions embodied in the White Paper of the previous year. Succeeding Governments have maintained the same attitude. I do not intend to enter into any detailed explanation of the reasons why it has always been thought inadvisable to publish the text of the McMahon correspondence. I will only say that these reasons have been held to be conclusive by successive Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, whatever their political views or those of the successive Administrations to which they belonged.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any reasons?

Dr. SHIELS: I have given one reason, the fact that these successive Secretaries of State have fully gone into this matter and have all adopted the same attitude. The arguments which the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford has addressed to the House to-night might more suitably have been addressed to his own friends while they occupied the bench from which I am now speaking.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has the hon. Gentleman not been aware that for years past I have raised these questions in regard to Palestine?

Dr. SHIELS: I was going to say that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman could
not persuade his own friends to modify their views, why should he expect to persuade me and my colleagues to do so? The point is one which has been repeatedly considered by different Governments and has always been decided in the same way. I see no reason to depart from the attitude which has always been adopted, nor do I see what useful purpose is served in pressing a point upon which so many competent judges have arrived at the same conclusion.
I beg the House—and I direct my appeal to all quarters of the House without consideration of party—to accept this conclusion as a definite and final one. So far as Palestine is concerned, no object will be served by reopening the subject. The present Government take the view which all their predecessors have taken, that it has no practical bearing upon the constitutional and political aspects of the Palestine question. That question has got to be decided on broad considerations of justice and equity. To the solution of this question His Majesty's Government are now engaged in addressing themselves in the hope of achieving a settlement which may be acceptable to all concerned. We fully realise the difficulties. Our attitude is not one of easy optimism, but we are determined to find a solution if we can; and we appeal to the House to have confidence in our good intentions and to believe that it is not by raking up the controversies of the past, but by tackling the difficulties of the present and of the future, that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached.
In regard to the matters which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lepton (Mr. Brockway), as he has said, I had no notice that they were to be raised, and I had no information that the hunger strike which he described had taken place. I have already dealt in the House with the prison conditions in Palestine. I have said that we are not satisfied; the buildings are very old, there is no provision in many cases for separate cell accommodation, and the up-to-date administration which we all wish to see is not in every case, for physical reasons, possible; but all I can assure my hon. Friend is that we are anxious to see that the conditions in this respect are improved. We have been in correspondence for some
time on the matter, and every effort is being made by the High Commissioner and by the administrators in Palestine to improve the buildings, to increase and improve the staff, and to do everything which is possible to make the present administration of Palestine beyond criticism. I am sorry that that is all I can say in that connection, as I have no information on the actual point which my hon. Friend brought forward.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Will the hon. Gentleman make an immediate inquiry on the point?

Dr. SHIELS: Naturally; and if what my Friend said is true, we shall no doubt get official information, and we will take steps to find out the exact position. I would like to say in regard to the whole matter generally, that while I make no complaint about my hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford raising this matter to-night, because I know that they have been very strongly interested in it, I would suggest that we ought now to look to the future in Palestine and not to the past. It is impossible to go over all the ground so far back as the middle of the War, and to decide on very controversial matters in regard to which in many cases it is difficult to get the exact position. I think that I have given good reasons why this question of the McMahon correspondence should now be allowed to drop, and why we should as a House concentrate on endeavouring to arrive at some satisfactory solution of the very great difficulties which are at present in the Palestine situation.

Mr. McSHANE: All who have listened to the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have listened to a perfectly clear but perfectly irrelevant speech. He has been asked to do one of two things. He has been asked if he will be good enough to publish the McMahon correspondence, or to give a reason for the non-publication of that correspondence. He has done neither. He has asked us to engage in an article of faith which I think it is too much to ask of us. It is equivalent to asking us to shut our eyes and open our mouths and see what he will send us. One of his excuses for not publishing the correspondence was almost too ridiculous to mention. The hon. Gentleman says he wants us, in dealing with that question of Palestine, not to deal
with the causes of the trouble but to look forward to the future in some sublime hope, but how by forgetting the causes we can manage to get a remedy for the causes I do not know. Is it not perfectly true that we cannot really adequately discuss this question in the House, as it will have to be discussed, unless we know the whole of the facts? One of the most pregnant facts is what lies in that correspondence between Sir H. McMahon and the Arabs. It was very significant that in the answer that the hon. Gentleman gave to-day to a question he said there had been no official publication of this correspondence. There is a section of those in Palestine who do know what is in that correspondence and either there is something in it of which we ought to be ashamed or there is not. Either there is something in it that conflicts with the attitude that we took up in Palestine when that correspondence was written, or there is not.
I suggest that merely to put forward, as one excellent reason why we should not press for the publication, the fact that the Duke of Devonshire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he was head of the Coalition, said it ought not to be published, is beside the point. Are the Labour Government going to follow in the steps of those right hon. Gentlemen? What are we doing here, is it merely to follow the precedent of right hon. Gentlemen opposite? Have we got no point of view distinct from them at all? Is there any reason for us being here if we are not to take up a distinct point of view? I do plead that, in spite of the hon. Gentleman having said this was his final word in the matter, he should take the view of those of us who have spoken here to-night, and which should command the approval and sympathy of most of those here. Those of us who have been into the question and have paid attention to the matter know that the Arabs there have a deep grievance. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] At any rate, the fact that my hon. Friend said "No" leaves the matter in doubt in this respect, that if that correspondence can clear it up, we ought to have it cleared up. I ask the hon. Gentleman to go to the Government and put our point of view, that unless there is something in this correspondence of which we ought to be ashamed, there
is no adequate reason why it should not be published.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go away feeling that there is very much dissatisfaction on the part of those who have heard his statement at the policy he has laid down. I, personally, have never taken any part at all in support of the point of view represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). Indeed, quite on the contrary, his point of view has generally very much irritated me, but certainly I do not think we can be fully satisfied that we can now proceed to get just arrangements in the Palestine quarter of the globe by shutting our eyes to important statements made on behalf of Great Britain in the past. There are two reasons why, in spite of what the hon. Member has told us, I still think there should be a modification of the Government's policy. If there is something to be ashamed of in this period of the War when, as the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford said just now, we were hard pressed, and did all sorts of things we should not have done, it will be very good for us now, in these saner days, to have the truth about the dirty things done in those times, so that never again shall we repeat them. If some explicit promise has been made to the Arabs, and I suspect that an explicit promise was made, either to the Arabs as a whole or to certain Arab rulers, it ought to be taken into account in any final arrangements made about Palestine, and I am certain that the hon. Member and the Colonial Office are not serving the best interests of the Zionist movement, which I have very much at heart, by the continued refusal to publish what I consider to be important information.

Mr. MANDER: I cannot help thinking that this matter will be left in a very unsatisfactory position if the hon. Member is not able to say anything further. If he had been able to say that the matter had been carefully considered by the present Cabinet, and that they had, after a thorough review of the situation, come to the conclusion that it would be definitely contrary to the national interest to have this correspondence published, there would be something to go upon; but merely to say that the late Government did not approve of publication
leaves some of us completely cold. In view of the opinions expressed in all parts of the House I hope the hon. Member will give an undertaking to make representations as to the general feeling of the House to the Secretary of State, with a view to having the whole question reviewed by the Government, so that a decision may be given by this Government regardless of what their predecessors may have done.

Mr. GORDON LANG: I, too, desire to add my voice to the representations that have been made to my hon. Friend that there may be some reconsideration of this matter. Very shortly we shall have to consider gravely and carefully the Report of the Palestine Commission. It is going to be a very anxious matter and all of us who hope to do justice in that matter will want to feel that there is no possibility of a rankling sense of injustice after our decision has been given. The Arabs make a very definite claim, a claim for which some of us feel there is a great deal of prima facie evidence, and I should regard the publication of this correspondence as being as necessary to remove such an impression, if it is a wrong impression, as others may feel it essential to have it published in order to justify the assertion. I feel that my hon. Friend is in a very serious difficulty to-night, or we should not have had what I am bound to regard as the extraordinary defence which he put forward for his action. Those of us who know him will feel perfectly sure that he must have been in a very delicate and difficult position; but it is partly my great regard for him which suggests to me that I should tell him that he will be in a much more difficult position when we discuss that Report if the correspondence has not been made available. I hope that when we do consider it we may do so with clear heads and open minds, and that will not be the case if this correspondence is withheld. In view of the general representations made to-night and the grave responsibility that will shortly come upon us, I hope my hon. Friend will be able to reconsider his position and that we may have more hope than we have had to-night.

Mr. McSHANE: Will the Under-Secretary make further representations to the Government on this question?

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'Clock.